April 2002 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

dlls/kernel/comm.c build failure

by Gerald Pfeifer

The following patch revision 1.56 date: 2002/04/21 22:06:09; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +24 -0 <wine(a)gc2.kloepfer.org> Faster serial speed cases for non Linux systems. broke dlls/kernel/comm.c on FreeBSD 4.5 (and probably all non-Linux systems) /usr/bin/gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include -g -O2 -Wall -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -fPIC -D__WINE__ -D_REENTRANT -I/usr/X11R6/include -o comm.o comm.c comm.c: In function `SetCommState': comm.c:1063: `CBR_230400' undeclared (first use in this function) comm.c:1063: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once comm.c:1063: for each function it appears in.) gmake[2]: *** [comm.o] Error 1 gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/.amd_mnt/vexpert/files8/test/wine/dlls/kernel' gmake[1]: *** [kernel/kernel32.dll.so] Error 2 apparently because CBR_230400 is not #defined in include/winbase.h. The patch below fixes this, but I suppose it's not what will go in finally... Gerald ChangeLog: Only use CBR_230400 and CBR_460800 if they have been defined. Index: dlls/kernel/comm.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/dlls/kernel/comm.c,v retrieving revision 1.56 diff -u -3 -p -r1.56 comm.c --- dlls/kernel/comm.c 21 Apr 2002 22:06:09 -0000 1.56 +++ dlls/kernel/comm.c 22 Apr 2002 06:44:43 -0000 @@ -1060,13 +1060,17 @@ BOOL WINAPI SetCommState( #endif #ifdef B230400 case 230400: +#ifdef CBR_230400 case CBR_230400: +#endif port.c_cflag |= B230400; break; #endif #ifdef B460800 case 460800: +#ifdef CBR_460800 case CBR_460800: +#endif port.c_cflag |= B460800; break; #endif

April 22, 2002

minor regression testing patch

by Paul Millar

Hi, Found attached bug. Curiously, the test doesn't fail even if wine is pretending to be Windows 95 :) ChangeLog: Fixed typo "Major" -> "Minor" BTW, After the patch, the test for WIN98 or later is: #define WIN98_PLUS(version) (version.dwMajorVersion==4 && \ version.dwMinorVersion>0) but, MS's documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/sysinfo/sysinfo_49iw.asp suggests something more like: #define WIN98_PLUS(version) \ ( (version.dwPlatformId == VER_PLATFORM_WIN32_WINDOWS) && \ ( (version.dwMajorVersion > 4) || \ (version.dwMajorVersion==4 && version.dwMinorVersion>0))) Is this more correct? ---- Paul Millar

April 21, 2002

Re: Enhancements and fixes for the rich text edit control

by Duane Clark

Just out of curiosity, since it has not shown up in CVS, is this patch from Chuck likely to be incorporated? It is working significantly better than the current code for me, at least. If there are problems with it, how about some words of guidance, so that he will be encouraged to keep working on it? The richedit stuff really needs it.

April 21, 2002

Q: using GDI printer from Linux using Wine?

by Heiko Nardmann

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Is it possible to configure Linux to use a GDI printer (with no native Linux support) using Wine? Does Wine support GDI printing already? - -- Heiko Nardmann (Dipl.-Ing.), h.nardmann(a)secunet.de, Software Development secunet Security Networks AG - Sicherheit in Netzwerken (www.secunet.de) Weidenauer Str. 223-225, D-57076 Siegen Tel. : +49 271 48950-13, Fax : +49 271 48950-50 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAjzCgU0ACgkQpm53PRScYyhbZACbBRK9ozAMv1HT6GL8+ND5NZtK G6oAoJqwzVvVd2IrERjMJAiRmCxCVLHo =bb79 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 21, 2002

Re: su to root failure in wineinstall

by Enrico Horn

Hi, On Saturday 20 April 2002 21:23, Thomas Hardman wrote: > Wine build complete. > > Performing 'make install' as root to install binaries, enter root password > Password: > /bin/bash: - : unrecognized option > > Either you entered an incorrect password or we failed to run > 'make install' correctly. > If you didn't enter an incorrect password then please report this > error to wine-devel(a)winehq.com. > > Installation failed, aborting. > earthops:/usr/src/wine-20020411$ That is an error(typo?) in wineinstall Find this line in wineinstall: if ! su root -c"$sucommand" and put a space between -c and "$sucommand" That should do it. Enrico farmboy1(a)subdimension.com

April 21, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Alexandre Julliard

Eric Pouech <eric.pouech(a)wanadoo.fr> writes: > yes an no. since we don't have a proper install (and detection) > mechanism > in wine, I was more leaning to having a single ALSA driver, that would > compile into 0.5 or 0.9 (depending on the headers found on the system). That's the best solution assuming you can also compile it to support both 0.5 and 0.9 if you have all the necessary headers, and detect which version to use at run-time. If this is not possible we need two separate drivers, otherwise it won't be possible to build a binary package that works for everybody. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

April 21, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Eric Pouech

> I don't think that this is the right way. IMHO, there should be one 0.5 > and "current" alsa module for wine - they really have different apis. > They have common features and an almost identical name, but that's it. > It would be cleaner to copy you code completely into a separate alsa-0.9 > ( or current or whatever) module and compile and install it separately. yes an no. since we don't have a proper install (and detection) mechanism in wine, I was more leaning to having a single ALSA driver, that would compile into 0.5 or 0.9 (depending on the headers found on the system). I agree that #ifdef:ing in the code is a bad idea. A+

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Eric Pouech

> But I think > many users, well at least me, would be rather disappointed at being > expected to run 0.5 (assuming that would be required). I don't object having a 0.9 driver at all. But I consider today having a 0.5 is more important than a 0.9 (even if it's for a short (1 year ?) period of time) A+

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Joerg Mayer

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:42:12PM +0200, Eric Pouech wrote: > > BTW, It's been quite a while that I'm using ALSA 0.9, so I can try to > > port your code to it. > ok, but keep both 0.5 and 0.9 inside and also protect 0.9 code when only > the 0.5 headers will be available. I don't think that this is the right way. IMHO, there should be one 0.5 and "current" alsa module for wine - they really have different apis. They have common features and an almost identical name, but that's it. It would be cleaner to copy you code completely into a separate alsa-0.9 ( or current or whatever) module and compile and install it separately. Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Joerg Mayer

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:40:31PM +0200, Eric Pouech wrote: > > OK, that is mostly the disappointment speaking > > that I still won't be able to run wine with Alsa. > The point is on the current installed base of ALSA drivers ... > It just means that 0.9 installed base is almost 0 (in percentage). With Suse 8.0 now shipping 0.9 and 0.9 being in the 2.5 development kernels, the userbase will start to grow fast. > So, spending time right now on 0.9 is not the top priority (at least for > me). That is your privilege as author :-) So there is one more sound module for wine to be written, as the api has changed significantly between 0.5 and 0.9. > OTOH, since the OSS emulation in ALSA 0.5 is broken, the point is whether > we fix it (using a pure ALSA 0.5 driver in Wine), or let users live with > that (TG has disabled the HAL support Yeah, I guess I automatically assumed that alsa 0.9 would be broken with respect to mmap too :-/ Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.

April 20, 2002