On 9/6/21 6:31 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
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?
Yes, although I think this ends up being worse than renaming them. You'd
have to write some nontrivial linker scripts.
* 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
