4 ms·

It's a shame winepak never really took off https://www.winepak.org/ https://www.winepak.org/ To make this clear, there hasn't been much activity since 2018: ht

It's a shame winepak never really took off https://www.winepak.org/ https://www.winepak.org/ To make this clear, there hasn't been much activity since 2018: https://github.com/winepak/winepak https://github.com/winepak/winepak

1_player 5y ago
That's fantastic! I've been trying to package as many apps as I can as flatpak (because flatpak rocks, fight me), I will definitely look into winepak to package Windows-only software. The fact that it uses a standard and common-place technology, it just needs more exposure IMO. This is the first time I have heard of it. EDIT: nevermind... $ flatpak remote-add --if-not-exists winepak https://dl.winepak.org/repo/winepak.flatpakrepo error: Signature made Fri 20 Jul 2018 03:30:34 BST using RSA key ID A959831C080B608F BAD signature from " <julian@richen.io>" Key expired Tue 09 Jun 2020 19:16:34 BST
- alvarlagerlof 5y ago
  It's not active anymore.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    Which is a real shame. I can definitely see some value in winepak, and flatpaks could be built from Lutris install scripts, etc. I don't have much interest in windows apps, but I wouldn't mind donating a bit of money (as opposed to free time) to the project. Edit: https://github.com/winepak/winepak/issues/23#issuecomment-644956680 https://github.com/winepak/winepak/issues/23#issuecomment-64... > The biggest issue with winepak, which is why I haven't been working on it, is that it all revolves around me building things instead of a remote server doing it and having people contribute. I really just need to get the buildbot & sdk in a place that it can auto build an push out. Then it can do all the signing and building again and this shouldn't happen. I just need to find the time. Maybe a few PR around automation, and/or donated CI runtime could help a whole lot?
smoldesu 5y ago
I mean, I can see why. At this point, Flatpak has more open issues than Wine itself...
- 1_player 5y ago
  The flatpak hate gang strikes again. Seriously, more bugs than Wine? For the first time we have a cross-distro packaging system, and I still hear people complaining that the olden days were better. Are you kidding me? Honestly, I don't even care to entertain this discussion, as for the FIRST TIME in Linux history there is people packaging an application and it works exactly the same everywhere, and some can only meet this achievement by unpaid volunteers with _snark_ because it's not "perfect". It's tiring to see any effort to make the Linux desktop a reality met with unconstructive opposition from daily Linux desktop users. /rant
  - grozzle 5y ago
    no-one here said the olden days were better. it is possible for something to be generally in the right direction, but still in great need of improvements. dismissing anything not as positive as you'd like as unconstructive is itself unconstructive.
    - 1_player 5y ago
      Ah, because saying that flatpak has more issues than Wine _is_ constructive. It is not even close to being true. Yes, I flew off the handle a bit there, but I'm quite done with the useless snark from some commenters, especially since it's pretty common on this forum regarding certain technologies, and in my eyes, completely unwarranted. Nowhere in my comment I said Flatpak is perfect and doesn't need more work to be really good, and I certainly didn't resort to hyperbole to discredit the work of other people, that's for sure. I should probably take a walk and not angrily comment on the Internet, I agree...
      - rimiform 5y ago
        I think you're looking for this behaviour? Try using * instead of _ and that's what you'll get. Use two for bold, if you want.

1_player 5y ago

That's fantastic! I've been trying to package as many apps as I can as flatpak (because flatpak rocks, fight me), I will definitely look into winepak to package Windows-only software. The fact that it uses a standard and common-place technology, it just needs more exposure IMO. This is the first time I have heard of it. EDIT: nevermind... $ flatpak remote-add --if-not-exists winepak https://dl.winepak.org/repo/winepak.flatpakrepo error: Signature made Fri 20 Jul 2018 03:30:34 BST using RSA key ID A959831C080B608F BAD signature from " <julian@richen.io>" Key expired Tue 09 Jun 2020 19:16:34 BST

alvarlagerlof 5y ago
It's not active anymore.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  Which is a real shame. I can definitely see some value in winepak, and flatpaks could be built from Lutris install scripts, etc. I don't have much interest in windows apps, but I wouldn't mind donating a bit of money (as opposed to free time) to the project. Edit: https://github.com/winepak/winepak/issues/23#issuecomment-644956680 https://github.com/winepak/winepak/issues/23#issuecomment-64... > The biggest issue with winepak, which is why I haven't been working on it, is that it all revolves around me building things instead of a remote server doing it and having people contribute. I really just need to get the buildbot & sdk in a place that it can auto build an push out. Then it can do all the signing and building again and this shouldn't happen. I just need to find the time. Maybe a few PR around automation, and/or donated CI runtime could help a whole lot?

smoldesu 5y ago

I mean, I can see why. At this point, Flatpak has more open issues than Wine itself...

1_player 5y ago
The flatpak hate gang strikes again. Seriously, more bugs than Wine? For the first time we have a cross-distro packaging system, and I still hear people complaining that the olden days were better. Are you kidding me? Honestly, I don't even care to entertain this discussion, as for the FIRST TIME in Linux history there is people packaging an application and it works exactly the same everywhere, and some can only meet this achievement by unpaid volunteers with _snark_ because it's not "perfect". It's tiring to see any effort to make the Linux desktop a reality met with unconstructive opposition from daily Linux desktop users. /rant
- grozzle 5y ago
  no-one here said the olden days were better. it is possible for something to be generally in the right direction, but still in great need of improvements. dismissing anything not as positive as you'd like as unconstructive is itself unconstructive.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    Ah, because saying that flatpak has more issues than Wine _is_ constructive. It is not even close to being true. Yes, I flew off the handle a bit there, but I'm quite done with the useless snark from some commenters, especially since it's pretty common on this forum regarding certain technologies, and in my eyes, completely unwarranted. Nowhere in my comment I said Flatpak is perfect and doesn't need more work to be really good, and I certainly didn't resort to hyperbole to discredit the work of other people, that's for sure. I should probably take a walk and not angrily comment on the Internet, I agree...
    - rimiform 5y ago
      I think you're looking for this behaviour? Try using * instead of _ and that's what you'll get. Use two for bold, if you want.