Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted by AJ and is pending the next development release.
Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch does eventually make it in to a later release.
It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated.
No, the appdb should not be touched. Rosanne said it correctly, ordinary users are NOT going to take the time to build Wine, nor should they. We can put in the bug report that the patch works and whether or not it has been submitted. Sometimes a patch is to rough or a real hack that breaks other programs, but with refinement is acceptable and will be incorporated into Wine. The appdb needs to stay as clean as it can. Of course, you can always add a bug report to the appdb entry, add comments and let users decide what they want to do. Rating a rogue patched Wine as Gold is very misleading. We need to keep ratings to what is available for the ordinary, unknowing user (read nOOb.) James McKenzie
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
No, the appdb should not be touched. Rosanne said it correctly, ordinary users are NOT going to take the time to build Wine, nor should they. We can put in the bug report that the patch works and whether or not it has been submitted. Sometimes a patch is to rough or a real hack that breaks other programs, but with refinement is acceptable and will be incorporated into Wine. The appdb needs to stay as clean as it can. Of course, you can always add a bug report to the appdb entry, add comments and let users decide what they want to do. Rating a rogue patched Wine as Gold is very misleading. We need to keep ratings to what is available for the ordinary, unknowing user (read nOOb.)
Ok, I can see that nobody agrees with me here. I think the suggestion helps newbies *and* experts by keeping them sorted out. The situation where some reports are against patched versions and others arent, and you have to dig into the details to figure out which is which doesn't serve anybody. Excluding patched versions entirely is one way of solving the problem, but it seems to me that you're going to have a hard time stopping people from reporting results against patched versions. Binning all patched versions into "Bronze" isn't great, since some of us *do* want to know if we can make an app work with a patch, and in fact quite a few of us Linux users fall into that category. But anyway, I've made my argument and I'll drop it now. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
Forgive me for bringing this up again, but could this be another argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, particular settings, &c in order to get particular applications to work better with the current latest version of Wine? Users would presumably be happy because they download Wine, download the launcher, and have great user experience "out of the box" with less complication. Devs would also presumably be happy as: - they would be able to use it as a source of inspiration for ongoing work - it makes concerns like this moot when it comes to appdb Might even be a good way of gently reminding users when new versions of Wine are released... -- Chris
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Chris Howe <mrmessiah(a)gmail.com> wrote:
argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches,
Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved with making a wine launcher.
2009/1/7 Sparr <sparr0(a)gmail.com>:
Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved with making a wine launcher.
This statement is very untrue. http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold(a)bluesata.com> wrote:
2009/1/7 Sparr <sparr0(a)gmail.com>:
Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved with making a wine launcher. This statement is very untrue. http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications
I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved.
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Sparr <sparr0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Zachary Goldberg <zgold(a)bluesata.com> wrote:
2009/1/7 Sparr <sparr0(a)gmail.com>:
Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved with making a wine launcher. This statement is very untrue. http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications
I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved.
Crossover/Bordeaux/PlayonLinux do. The others, I've never heard of. -- -Austin
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:46:06 -0500 Sparr <sparr0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved. http://repo.or.cz/w/WineLauncher.git?a=shortlog
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Chris Howe <mrmessiah(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Forgive me for bringing this up again, but could this be another argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, particular settings, &c in order to get particular applications to work better with the current latest version of Wine?
Users would presumably be happy because they download Wine, download the launcher, and have great user experience "out of the box" with less complication.
Devs would also presumably be happy as: - they would be able to use it as a source of inspiration for ongoing work - it makes concerns like this moot when it comes to appdb
Might even be a good way of gently reminding users when new versions of Wine are released...
-- Chris
You're free to do that if you'd like, but I don't see how that would help. The effort is better spent getting those patches put into Wine itself. -- -Austin
participants (7)
-
Austin English -
Chris Howe -
IneedAname -
James Mckenzie -
Nathaniel Gray -
Sparr -
Zachary Goldberg