winebuild -N generalization (take 2)

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

Of course,

99.99% percent of my previous message on this subject was just
a bunch of crap, sorry to waste bandwidth, and kill neurons.
I just want to note the DLLFileName has a very well defined
semantics that should not get changed as I initially suggested.

Mea culpa.

What about this hack instead? Alexandre, if this is acceptable,
I can update the man page and submit a patch. Motivation for
having an option to force the DLLFileName is as before.

Index: tools/winebuild/main.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvs/wine/tools/winebuild/main.c,v
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -r1.43 main.c
--- tools/winebuild/main.c      12 Dec 2002 04:06:28 -0000      1.43
+++ tools/winebuild/main.c      23 Dec 2002 23:53:26 -0000
@@ -263,6 +263,7 @@
 {
     strncpy( DLLName, arg, sizeof(DLLName) );
     DLLName[sizeof(DLLName) - 1] = 0;
+    set_dll_file_name( arg );
 }

 static void do_entry( const char *arg )


-- 
Dimi.

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun(a)rogers.com> writes:
> What about this hack instead? Alexandre, if this is acceptable,
> I can update the man page and submit a patch. Motivation for
> having an option to force the DLLFileName is as before.

No, it's still wrong IMO. DLLName and DLLFileName are two different
things and you shouldn't use the same option for both.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.com

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On December 23, 2002 08:07 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> No, it's still wrong IMO. DLLName and DLLFileName are two different
> things and you shouldn't use the same option for both.

Yeah, that's why I said it's a hack. What about a new -F option?

-- 
Dimi.

[Alexandre Julliard]

"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun(a)rogers.com> writes:
> Yeah, that's why I said it's a hack. What about a new -F option?

Sure that would be fine.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.com