Comment 19 for bug 43324

Should we begin to transition package names for i386 archs as well? I think that might make life a little more easier than the overall picture we currently have now. I.E: i386 can install wine32 (wine becomes a transition package for a release), while AMD64 users have their choice of wine64 or wine32. Also, I can't find the resource, but I seem to recall there being issues with what if a 64-bit application expects to call a 32 bit one. This would require both wine64 and wine32, which I don't believe are parallel installable at the moment. Also, see http://winehq.org/?issue=318 for a few more issues with `wine64'.

So long story short, we may want to transition to calling our package "wine32" on all archs, even though "wine64" probably won't come around for a while (yes, even though it does compile).