On 9/6/21 6:31 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:00 PM Zebediah Figura
<zfigura(a)codeweavers.com> 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!
>