On 19 January 2018 at 15:48, Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/19/2018 09:32 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >> >> IMHO wine as the package is broken by design. Maintainer of the wine >> just over complicated almost everything what was possible to over >> complicate. > > > It's not broken. It's just the nature of Windows binaries. Users expect "dnf > install wine" to install everything they need to run their .exe file. I > don't see any benefit of removing the 32-bit packages from being installed. > It would add another command users have to run. So you want to say that it is not possible to have cleanly separated ABI versions in rpm packaged form? Whoever will be trying to install wine blindly on i686 or x86_64 only systems will stump in this landmine. If someone will install let's say 64 bit wine and will be trying execute 32 bit windows binary will have install message about lack of ABI support and after some face palm will consider to install 32 bit packages. When my intention was to try run iTunes I was curious "why the h*ll wine drags both ABIs packages?" It took me significant time after looking on wine.spec to decipher that these dependencies are artificial and trying to use 64 bit iTunes I don't need all this stuff. If you are still thinking that current wine packaging model is OK just thy to answer on the question: why there are wine.i686 and wine.x8_64? Nevertheless this has nothing to do with subject. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | Tel: 0774 1209067 | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
