February 2002 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

RE: Jeremy makes a persuasive argument for LGPL
by Patrik Stridvall 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

> Well, I'm fairly convinced after reading his argument that LGPL is the > right way to go. I think it's better for the Wine project > over the long > term. Read my reply the Jeremy. Do you are really think the price is worth paying? > For those companies who have built a business model on closed source > enhancements to Wine, there is still a way to play the game: > > At some point Wine is going to improve to the point where the > core code > works well enough to do almost everything we need. There will > always be > room for improvement, but the action may shift to > reimplementing Microsoft > applications that have important APIs (Internet Explorer, > Windows Media > Player...). > > I'm sure that Microsoft will change its EULAs to prohibit use of > applications such as MSIE on a Non-Microsoft OS. It has > already started > doing this for some programs. I don't think such paragraph are worth the paper they are written on and as long as the Microsoft trial is going on thet wouldn't dare even try. > Companies could respond by selling open or closed source > reimplementations > of these applications, bundled with a LGPL Wine. There will always be > plenty of ways to add value on top of the core Wine code. Will it? You don't think most of the market will be eaten up by the traditional Linux distributions (Debian, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake etc) and possible Lindows? > Meanwhile, LGPL ensures that core code improvements will flow back to > benefit all, not just those individuals and companies that have an > altruistic bent. Yes, but at a terrible price.

1 0

Re: Scrollbar Fix
by Alexandre Julliard 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

Phillip Ezolt <ezolt(a)perf.zko.dec.com> writes: > It converts the intermediate variables to floats instead of > int, which guarantees that multiplication of large values of don't > overflow. (with a small sacrifice of accuracy) You should probably use MulDiv() instead of floats. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Re: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Brett Glass 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

Correction to the message I just sent: "Finally, because the (L)GPL makes product differentiation at best and often infeasible or impossible" Should have been: "Finally, because the (L)GPL makes product differentiation at best difficult and often infeasible or impossible" --Brett

1 0

WINELIB is not defined
by Andriy Palamarchuk 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

To check whether an application is compiled under Wine I should use WINELIB macro, right? It seems the macro is not defined if I try to check on it in programs/notepad. Should I define it in the Makefile.in explicitely? I see that other programs, specifically winhelp, wcmd, progman, use conditional compilation blocks, based on the macro, but I did not find it defined in their Make files. Sorry for the newbie question, but I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Thanks, Andriy Palamarchuk __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: Clarification on my call for license change
by Patrik Stridvall 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

> > >Several people have asked me to clarify my original post. > > I just don't understand one thing: > > How does your company expect to make money once WINE is > xGPLed? If all your > > code has to be contributed back, why should I buy it from > your company? > > Hi, > > Companies will pay because they want certain functionality to > be implemented > that isn't there. For example, let's say you are company > Foo, who wants > their product "FooBar for Windows 2000" to work in Linux using WINE. > It makes use of some COM related functionality not currently in WINE > (like Out-of-proc objects or something) What do you do? > I mean, you can't just post on wine-devl and say "hey guys, > stop making > patches for DirectX, we want you to fix this COM stuff and NOW!" > No way. Do you get your internal staff to do it? Maybe. However, > most likely none of them know anything about WINE, so there is a big > ramp up time. Or do you hire an outside company to help you out, > a WINE developer-for-hire so to speak. That's why companies like > Macadamian and CodeWeavers get hired by clients, to get functionality > into WINE that would otherwise not get done. It allows the > client to focus > the fixes in the areas they need for their particular > application. Congratulations, you have just explained is why specialized consultants can make a living in the Wine market. However since this with a similar explaination is true in almost any market, I can't say I'm impressed. Sorry. That was perhaps a little rude. I was trying to illustrate a principle not insult you. It was not really aimed at you. > Sure, these > changes (optionally for BSD license, "required" for GPL) are > made available to > competitors, but as far back as I remember and for a while > yet I imagine > any moderately complex app will always require some fixes to > WINE to get > it to work perfectly. Yes, but sometimes this is what your client wants, sometimes it is not. Sometimes that client doesn't understand what is good for him and then you have the choice of explaining why or keeping you mouth shut. Your choice, sometimes this is better for you, sometimes it is not. Note however, what is good for you is not nessarily the same thing that is good for your client. Longterm that is. Short term the client pays you for your work regardless.

2 1

RE: ldconfig : ..... .so is not a symbolic link
by Medland, Bill 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

> -----Original Message----- > From: Sylvain Petreolle [mailto:spetreolle(a)yahoo.fr] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 12:26 AM > To: wine-devel(a)winehq.com > Cc: wine-users(a)winehq.com > Subject: ldconfig : ..... .so is not a symbolic link > > > After updating this morning > cvs udpate -APd > rm config.cache > ./configure > make depend && make > > i get this when 'make install' : > what should i do ? (think i won't be the only one) Ah! I wasn't the only one. I went home last night and built a fresh wine and had the same thing happen to me. I thought it was because I had a screwed up system. As far as I understand it (google *IS* your friend) this is raised by ldconfig on occasions when it finds two identical so's that are explicitly saved rather than symbolically linked. However not always. In my case having removed all those messages (which I presume are actually warnings) ldconfig still didn't seem to detect my libuser.so for some reason (and possibly some others). (Actually they can't be warnings; initially it couldn't find libwprocs.so but that disappeared when I linked it to libkernel32.so, I think). Hopefully someone who knows what they are talking about will help us both out. Bill P.S. I don't suppose you tried a make uninstall and make install. DONT. make install won't work since the wine gets copied after the windedbg tries to copy from it.

1 0

Re: wine-devel digest, Vol 1 #745 - 13 msgs
by Roger Fujii 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

Steve Langasek <vorlon(a)dodds.net> wrote: > > I'd like to. But I will not release code under an FSF license, so I can > > only do so if I know that the project won't try to xGPL my work. > > You believe in releasing code under BSD-style licenses, but you refuse to > do so unless you have assurances that no one will create a GPLed product > from that code as allowed by the BSD license? I think there is a distinction to be made between RE-licencing and the "original" license. Given that we are possibly in an imminent change of the license, it is conceivable that a patch made now might not come out under a BSD license (really would depend on how the switchover would occur). Just as some people won't contribute to anything BUT *gpled projects, it's not unreasonable for other to have the opposite position. -r

1 0

ldconfig : ..... .so is not a symbolic link
by Sylvain Petreolle 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

After updating this morning cvs udpate -APd rm config.cache ./configure make depend && make i get this when 'make install' : what should i do ? (think i won't be the only one) /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine_tsx11.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwineps.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libw32skrnl.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libsetupapi.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/liboleaut32.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libole32.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libmsvfw32.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libkernel32.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libgdi32.so is not a symbolic link /sbin/ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libcomdlg32.so is not a symbolic link ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr

1 0

Re: Wine License change: Open question to Jeremy White
by Sylvain Petreolle 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

Hi, Last time you just said you had personal problems. Now you are just hiding away. When a company wants to have the money, there are not days or weeks, only hours. Re: Wine License change: Open question to Jeremy White From: Jeremy White (jwhite(a)codeweavers.com) Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 18:23:23 EST Next message: Andreas Mohr: "Re: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE" Previous message: Andreas Mohr: "Re: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE" In reply to: Roland: "Wine License change: Open question to Jeremy White" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland, I've just hit a very busy patch in my personal life. You've asked a fair question, and I will try to address it, but please give me a day or two. Thanks, Jeremy ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr

1 0

OT: Wine build system tech info
by Vassilis Virvilis 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

Halo wine-devel people, Although I understand you probably "enjoy" one of the best or worst f^H debates of all times (who said wine devel is immune to flamewars after all? :-) I would like to pose a somewhat off topic question but still quite technical. As part of a private investigation I noticed that both WINE and LINUX kernel build systems have a mkdep utility which generates in clude file dependencies. What I am looking for is to understand the reasons behind this decision for the two very popular projects instead the recipe suggested by GNU make documentation. Here is what GNU MAKE suggests as the preferred way to handle dependencies. #---------Makefile Start TARGET=a SOURCES=a.c b.c CFLAGS=-ansi -pedantic -Wall OBJECTS=$(SOURCES:.c=.o) DEPS=$(SOURCES:.c=.d) %.d: %.c set -e; $(CC) -MM $(CPPFLAGS) $< \ | sed 's/$$*$\.o[ :]*/\1.o $@ : /g' > $@; \ [ -s $@ ] || rm -f $@; $(TARGET): $(OBJECTS) include $(DEPS) #---------Makefile End This method has the several disadvantages: i) It is GNU specific (unportable): a) Needs accumulative dependencies. That means a.o: a.c a.o: a.h does not override the first entry but it means a.o: a.c a.h b) It requires the include statement c) It requires that MAKE will reload the Makefile as soon as it realizes that the Makefile or any of included file has been changed. d) It uses compiler specific features. ii) Speed. a) Files has to be parsed twice during compilation. b) Slight changes to config.h may result in unnecessary, uncontrolled compilations. --------------- I would like to know if there are any other reasons that is not listed here and or if any of the reasons listed above is more significant than the others. Thank you for your time. .Bill __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com

3 4