On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:00 PM Zebediah Figura <zfigura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks everyone for their input. > > There seems to be a consensus that Fedora would prefer that we use their > MinGW dynamic libraries. However, this leaves a couple of questions: > > * As I described in [1], we *may* be able to hack things in the Wine > loader such that we can use unmodified dynamic libraries. However, it's > not fully clear yet that it's feasible. If it turns out to be > infeasible, what preferences does Fedora have? (Renamed dynamic > libraries shipped separately, shipped as part of Wine, static libraries, > etc...) > Would it be possible to use the MinGW static libraries to generate new Wine dynamic libraries? > * Since most other distributions don't ship any mingw libraries (yet), > and since Fedora doesn't ship all of the libraries we need yet either, > we will probably need to include code in wine to fall back to imported > sources or submodules. Is this acceptable to be used in Fedora, at least > on a temporary basis? > Yes, we have a policy that allows bundling for these circumstances, they just have to be declared: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling In the Fedora case, we'd simply force Wine to build using our system libraries. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
