Installing WINE

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Installing WINE

Dave Horsfall
I just did "port install wine", and it seeme to be (re)installing half the
known universe...  Is this to be expected?  Installinh it on Debian was
quite simple - just an "apt-get" or two.

--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing WINE

Al Varnell
Looks to be 244 dependancies for wine 2.0.1.

If I had to guess I'd say that wine was originally written for Unix where most of those processes already exist.

Ah yes, WikipediA says <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)>:
>
> Wine (recursive acronym for Wine Is Not an Emulator) is a free and open-source compatibility layer that aims to allow computer programs (application software and computer games) developed for Microsoft Windows to run on Unix-like operating systems.

-Al-

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 09:29 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>
> I just did "port install wine", and it seeme to be (re)installing half the
> known universe...  Is this to be expected?  Installinh it on Debian was
> quite simple - just an "apt-get" or two.

--
Al Varnell
Mountain View, CA







smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing WINE

Ryan Schmidt-24
In reply to this post by Dave Horsfall

> On Jun 10, 2017, at 23:29, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>
> I just did "port install wine", and it seeme to be (re)installing half the
> known universe...  Is this to be expected?  Installinh it on Debian was
> quite simple - just an "apt-get" or two.

MacPorts Wine is 32-bit. Usually, your other ports will be installed 64-bit. So when you install wine, it will reinstall all of its dependencies with the universal variant, so that they contain both 32-bit and 64-bit code.

On Debian and other Linux systems, wine may already be 64-bit, which might explain why you didn't have a similar problem there. There has been a platform-specific reason why wine must be 32-bit on macOS, but allegedly that reason no longer applies as of wine 2.0. Someone has worked on adding 64-bit support to the wine port:

https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53651

I have not evaluated this.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing WINE

Mojca Miklavec-2
On 11 June 2017 at 10:32, Ryan Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>> On Jun 10, 2017, at 23:29, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>
>> I just did "port install wine", and it seeme to be (re)installing half the
>> known universe...  Is this to be expected?  Installinh it on Debian was
>> quite simple - just an "apt-get" or two.
>
> MacPorts Wine is 32-bit. Usually, your other ports will be installed 64-bit. So when you install wine, it will reinstall all of its dependencies with the universal variant, so that they contain both 32-bit and 64-bit code.
>
> On Debian and other Linux systems, wine may already be 64-bit, which might explain why you didn't have a similar problem there. There has been a platform-specific reason why wine must be 32-bit on macOS, but allegedly that reason no longer applies as of wine 2.0. Someone has worked on adding 64-bit support to the wine port:
>
> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53651
>
> I have not evaluated this.

Would you be OK if some other MacPorts developer takes a look, tests
the ports and commits the changes from the following two PRs?

    https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/374
    https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/442

Mojca
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing WINE

Dave Horsfall
In reply to this post by Ryan Schmidt-24
On Sun, 11 Jun 2017, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> MacPorts Wine is 32-bit. Usually, your other ports will be installed
> 64-bit. So when you install wine, it will reinstall all of its
> dependencies with the universal variant, so that they contain both
> 32-bit and 64-bit code.

Thanks for that; it was a bit disconcerting when I saw it...

> On Debian and other Linux systems, wine may already be 64-bit, which
> might explain why you didn't have a similar problem there. There has
> been a platform-specific reason why wine must be 32-bit on macOS, but
> allegedly that reason no longer applies as of wine 2.0. Someone has
> worked on adding 64-bit support to the wine port:
>
> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53651
>
> I have not evaluated this.

OK, I'll keep that in mind; I think there's a couple of 64-bit Windoze
applications I need to run, so I can always using Penguin/OS for that.

--
Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU)  "Those who don't understand security will suffer."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing WINE

Ryan Schmidt-24
In reply to this post by Mojca Miklavec-2

> On Jun 11, 2017, at 11:10, Mojca Miklavec <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 11 June 2017 at 10:32, Ryan Schmidt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 10, 2017, at 23:29, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>>>
>>> I just did "port install wine", and it seeme to be (re)installing half the
>>> known universe...  Is this to be expected?  Installinh it on Debian was
>>> quite simple - just an "apt-get" or two.
>>
>> MacPorts Wine is 32-bit. Usually, your other ports will be installed 64-bit. So when you install wine, it will reinstall all of its dependencies with the universal variant, so that they contain both 32-bit and 64-bit code.
>>
>> On Debian and other Linux systems, wine may already be 64-bit, which might explain why you didn't have a similar problem there. There has been a platform-specific reason why wine must be 32-bit on macOS, but allegedly that reason no longer applies as of wine 2.0. Someone has worked on adding 64-bit support to the wine port:
>>
>> https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53651
>>
>> I have not evaluated this.
>
> Would you be OK if some other MacPorts developer takes a look, tests
> the ports and commits the changes from the following two PRs?
>
>    https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/374
>    https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/442
>
> Mojca

Sure. 72-hour maintainer timeout rule.