As asked per the title, why is there no wine-stable package outside the one in the OBS? It seems all other wine variants have a package in the factory repo:
wine-gecko
wine-mono
wine-staging
So, what gives? Just curious to know if there is a reason?
Because the maintainers decided to have the latest version for a rolling release distribution like Tumbleweed.
ich@laptopneu:~> zypper se -s wine
Repository-Daten werden geladen...
Installierte Pakete werden gelesen...
S | Name | Type | Version | Arch | Repository
---+----------------------------+-------+--------------+--------+-----------
| mingw32-cross-wine | Paket | 1.3.3-2.1 | noarch | OSS
| mingw64-cross-wine | Paket | 1.3.3-1.1 | noarch | OSS
| python311-twine | Paket | 6.1.0-1.2 | noarch | OSS
| python312-twine | Paket | 6.1.0-1.2 | noarch | OSS
| python313-twine | Paket | 6.1.0-1.2 | noarch | OSS
| q4wine | Paket | 1.4.2-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| q4wine-lang | Paket | 1.4.2-1.1 | noarch | OSS
| wine | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-32bit | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-binfmt | Paket | 1.2.1-1.11 | noarch | OSS
| wine-binfmt-standalone | Paket | 1.2.1-1.11 | noarch | OSS
| wine-devel | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-devel-32bit | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-gecko | Paket | 2.47.4-1.5 | noarch | OSS
| wine-mono | Paket | 10.1.0-1.1 | noarch | NON-OSS
| wine-staging | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-staging-32bit | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-staging-devel | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-staging-devel-32bit | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-staging-wow64 | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-staging-wow64-devel | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-wow64 | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| wine-wow64-devel | Paket | 10.12-1.1 | x86_64 | OSS
| winetricks | Paket | 20250102-1.5 | noarch | OSS
| winetricks-bash-completion | Paket | 20250102-1.5 | noarch | OSS
ich@laptopneu:~>
That’s all well and good, but if we extrapolate that more broadly it would follow that they would also want to then use the mainline kernel. Instead they chose the “stable” kernel(or what is categorized as such). But that’s a whole other discussion.
I want to clarify that I’m not complaining exactly, just curious about the thought process. That, and its always nicer to have more options without having to stray from the beaten path too much. 
Sure, especially when it is somebody else who spends own time making it happen.
Supporting two different versions means twice as much resources is needed. Either the existing maintainers must spend more time or somebody else needs to step in. If you have convincing arguments why maintainers must spend more time - by all means, talk to them. But this forum is not the right place for it.
Apparently I wasn’t clear enough when I wrote:
I want to clarify that I’m not complaining
…so apparently I need to clarify further. I’m neither complaining, requesting, demanding, nor in any way unhappy, concerned, or disappointed about this being the case.
As far as my declarative statement about more options without straying from the beaten path being nicer, it was a general notion, and no way implied a call for change.
If you have convincing arguments why maintainers must spend more time
No thanks. I’m quite alright with this.
Either the existing maintainers must spend more time or somebody else needs to step in.
Someone already has…in the OBS.
Nonsense. This was a question asked out of curiosity, and not bad faith. This forum is the exact right place for such a question.
In this case it belongs to Open Chat, not the technical support part.
Fair enough. My mistake for mislabeling.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.