bump(x11/wine-stable): 10.0

[tqfx]

No description provided.

[licy183]

9.22 is not the stable branch of winehq. You can bump it directly to 10.0.

[TomJo2000]

That being said, I think we should probably be packaging the patch releases of WINE as well.
If not as wine-stable then maybe as wine-latest.
E.g. wine-stable = 10.0, wine-latest = 10.x (once patch releases are being released for it)

[licy183]

In other distros, they are packaged as wine-stable and wine-devel. I'll move these packages from TUR this night or tomorrow.

[Biswa96]

In other distros, they are packaged as wine-stable and wine-devel.

There are no wine-stable or wine-devel according to repology.

• https://repology.org/projects/?search=wine-stable
• https://repology.org/projects/?search=wine-devel

[TomJo2000]

I think it's probably fine to either just rename wine-stable to wine and package patch releases,
or provide a wine metapackage that can be provided by either wine-stable or wine-devel (although I still think wine-latest would be a clearer name).

[licy183]

Repology classifies all of these as wine.

https://repology.org/project/wine/versions

wine-stable and wine-devel are used in the official apt repo of WineHQ.

https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Debian-Ubuntu

[TomJo2000]

While we're on the topic of "unstable features".
I'd like to leave a note here that we will probably want to enable arm64ec support as soon as LLVM20 officially releases and has been ported to Termux.
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/releases/wine-10.0#arm64

[licy183]

I'll try to install wine-stable/staging/devel to /opt before moving them from TUR...

[licy183]

Thanks!