July 2011 - Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [8/9] winhttp: Implement IWinHttpRequest::SetRequestHeader.
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12827 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

1 0

Re: [7/9] winhttp: Implement IWinHttpRequest::GetResponseHeader.
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12826 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

1 0

Re: [6/9] winhttp: Add some parameter checks.
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12824 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

1 0

Re: [1/9] winhttp: Implement IWinHttpRequest::SetProxy.
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12823 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

1 0

Re: msvcrt/tests: remove unused assignments (LLVM/Clang)
by Frédéric Delanoy 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:48, Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: > -- > -Austin Already sent similar patches. Not sure AJ likes those.

2 1

Re: cmd: mkdir should complain if directory already exists (try 2)
by Frédéric Delanoy 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 07:39, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > Changes since last try: > - fix remaining todo_wine's > - add one more testcase for invalid paths (one that doesn't trigger > help message) > - simplified create_full_path > - avoid generating error message in race case where somebody else > creates an intermediate directory first Maybe a bit nitpickings, but echo mkdir foo slash star errorlevel %ErrorLevel% could be more readable with echo mkdir foo/* errorlevel %ErrorLevel% / and * are not to be escaped, so don't mind expanding them "litteraly" Frédéric

1 0

Re: [PATCH 3/4] ntdll: implement the NamedPipeConfiguration value for the FilePipeLocalInformation class of NtQueryInformati
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12805 Your paranoid android. === W7PROX64 (64 bit pipe) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: [PATCH 2/4] kernel32, ntdll, server: implement permission checks for named pipes
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12804 Your paranoid android. === W7PROX64 (64 bit pipe) === No test summary line found

1 0

Re: [PATCH 1/4] server, ntdll: get rid of the blocking parameter for ioctls. blockingness depends on the overlapped flag for
by Marvin 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=12803 Your paranoid android. === W7PROX64 (64 bit pipe) === No test summary line found

1 0

Questions on WINE releases and stability
by louis＠museresearch.com 26 Jul '11

26 Jul '11

Hi, I am a developer for a product which makes heavy use of WINE. Right now, we're deciding which newer version of WINE to go to, and I thought the wine-devel community might have some insight. I did read the WineReleaseCriteria entry on the wiki, but still have some questions. If anyone could answer some things that I've been wondering about, it would go a long way towards helping us make an informed decision. So, here goes: - Does the development branch of WINE go through a battery of tests before it is posted? What kind of criteria has to be met before a development release is made available on the main page? - It's my understanding that the stable branch only has select features and patches ported over (from the wiki: "..with only minimal changes merged in"). Would this mean that if I compared a stable release with a development release from around the same time that the two releases would have significant differences? Specifically, I'm wondering about 1.2.3 vs. 1.3.15. - Is 64-bit support in version 1.2.3 generally usable and stable, or is the current development release a lot more mature in that respect? Your expertise would be appreciated! Louis

4 3