Package Details: wine-ge-custom 1:GE.Proton8.26-5

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/wine-ge-custom.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: wine-ge-custom
Description: A compatibility layer for running Windows programs - GloriousEggroll branch
Upstream URL: https://github.com/GloriousEggroll/wine-ge-custom
Licenses: LGPL-2.1-or-later
Conflicts: wine
Provides: wine
Submitter: loathingkernel
Maintainer: loathingkernel
Last Packager: loathingkernel
Votes: 36
Popularity: 0.90
First Submitted: 2021-09-01 22:06 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-06-06 21:37 (UTC)

Required by (372)

Sources (7)

Pinned Comments

loathingkernel commented on 2022-03-02 14:12 (UTC)

@Strykar Nope, see https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wine-ge-custom#comment-831304

You can grab compiled packages from https://github.com/loathingKernel/PKGBUILDs/releases/tag/packages

loathingkernel commented on 2021-10-15 10:01 (UTC) (edited on 2021-10-15 10:04 (UTC) by loathingkernel)

@thaewrapt, I see, you might be correct. The prebuilt package is not a good candidate for packaging for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is built using Lutris's runtime, and as such inherits the same issues as Proton, namely it is at its best when running inside that runtime. Also, although I might be wrong here, I haven't found any mention of Lutris being able to use a system-wide installation directory in the same way Steam can. For these reasons, I believe that packaging those binaries is pointless and they should be managed by Lutris itself.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next › Last »

loathingkernel commented on 2022-03-02 14:12 (UTC)

@Strykar Nope, see https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/wine-ge-custom#comment-831304

You can grab compiled packages from https://github.com/loathingKernel/PKGBUILDs/releases/tag/packages

Strykar commented on 2022-03-02 14:02 (UTC)

@loathingkernel Any chance you would please ship a wine-ge-custom-bin package too?

loathingkernel commented on 2022-02-16 15:11 (UTC)

@SleepingPanda It is fixed now, forgot to edit the reply.

SleepingPanda commented on 2022-02-16 15:08 (UTC)

@loathingkernel Thanks for the swift response! I'll continue using the older version until then. Also thank you so much for maintaining this package.

loathingkernel commented on 2022-02-15 13:14 (UTC) (edited on 2022-02-15 14:11 (UTC) by loathingkernel)

@SleepingPanda I assume it is the new glibc and linux-api-headers, gonna have to take a look deeper.

SleepingPanda commented on 2022-02-15 03:07 (UTC) (edited on 2022-02-15 11:58 (UTC) by SleepingPanda)

I'm having trouble building this version (7.2.GE.2-1). Is anyone else encountering issues with futexes?

loathingkernel commented on 2022-01-23 03:07 (UTC)

@Nu4425 No, there won't be any problems, I just overlooked adding those comments. You have to be careful with the specified flags, some might cause issues but if it is just adding -march=native, you won't face any issues.

Nu4425 commented on 2022-01-23 01:49 (UTC) (edited on 2022-01-23 01:52 (UTC) by Nu4425)

@loathingkernel, I noticed unlike the other packages you maintain that documentation in this PKGBUILD is absent about compiling natively by passing -march=native and omitting -mtune=core-avx2 for the CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS variables.

If one wishes to compile natively this way, will there be any problems in the built package's functionality? If there will be, what are your recommendations?

loathingkernel commented on 2022-01-22 11:54 (UTC) (edited on 2022-01-22 11:56 (UTC) by loathingkernel)

@Neko-san the specific compiler that is required is the default compiler and not something that can or will change without user intervention. I am against polluting the script with safeguards against user-defined options, it is a bottomless pit as there is no way to safeguard against everything. The reason certain flags are enforced is because Arch defaults will cause the build process to fail, and the next best candidates are the Proton flags.

Neko-san commented on 2022-01-18 18:10 (UTC) (edited on 2022-01-18 18:20 (UTC) by Neko-san)

@loathingkernel On the contrary, I disagree considering that, if a maintainer knows a specific compiler is required, then they should enforce that the necessary compiler is used.

That aside, I do compile in chroots, and user compiler preference has no bearing on that.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next › Last »