Skip to content

feat(wip): use wine from extracted appimage - #422

Draft
ctrlaltf24 wants to merge 1 commit into
FaithLife-Community:mainfrom
ctrlaltf24:feat-restructure-wine-download
Draft

feat(wip): use wine from extracted appimage#422
ctrlaltf24 wants to merge 1 commit into
FaithLife-Community:mainfrom
ctrlaltf24:feat-restructure-wine-download

Conversation

@ctrlaltf24

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

removes wine code logic

switches default to using the tarball of the appimage instead to avoid the fuse dependency

  • this doesn't yet work inside of distrobox but does work on my debian host. Not pushing yet as there is clearly something I'm not understanding as to how the appimage gets mounted. I'd prefer if this was a pure binary/LD_Library path manipulation rather than having to use the wrapper from the appimage

begins to start writing ci around distrobox

removes wine code logic

switches default to using the tarball of the appimage instead to avoid the fue dependency

begins to start writing ci around distrobox
@thw26

thw26 commented Aug 22, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Thinking about this one. One of the benefits of this will be removing issues with AppImages. But the contents of the AppImage will still be unusable by Alpine systems because the Wine inside the AppImage is still not muslc, no?

We will need to acquire a muslc Wine from another source as part of this switch, correct?

@thw26

thw26 commented Aug 24, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Another thought: just cross-linking an issue:

#194

This was referenced Aug 24, 2025
@thw26

thw26 commented Aug 24, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

This PR is also necessary for #14

@thw26 thw26 linked an issue Aug 25, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
@thw26

thw26 commented Sep 13, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Another note I made: #24 (comment)

What if we aimed for utilizing distrobox in order to simplify our whole process? We could potentially drop some of our dependency installations and rely (solely?) on distrobox.

We could then get around even the muslc (and FreeBSD?) issues by simply utilizing a Debian (or other: Arch to be most up-to-date?) system container.

Not having worked with distrobox, would we be able to prepare a container for distribution even? So instead of maintaining lengthy in-app instructions, could we distribute essentially our own Logos-focused Distro? i.e., maintain a distrobox container repo?

@ctrlaltf24

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

If we wanted a cross-distro solution flatpak/snap are more well traveled (and actually known). Regardless of our container solution, we'd still want wine as binaries we build

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Consider packaging wine as a tarball rather than an appimage

2 participants