January 2003 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: FHS vs LSB

by Marcus Meissner

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:20:29PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote: > In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB > any objections ? > > FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ > > LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/ The FHS is a part of the LSB standard. And we cannot be LSB compliant, we need way more in the matter of system calls and ioctls than LSB allows ;) Ciao, Marcus

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Add filesytem type NTFS to config

by Tony Lambregts

Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > --- Tony Lambregts <tony_lambregts(a)telusplanet.net> a écrit : > > >>Sylvain Petreolle wrote: >> >> >> >>>Why not only change _small_ FAT to FAT32 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Well floppies are obviously not FAT32. No big deal but why stop at >>FAT32. Why not NTFS? >> >> >> >Im not against NTFS. It was just the lazy approach. > The primary reason that I picked NTFS over FAT32 is simply that FAT32 has a 4GB file size limitation. NTFS is limited only by disk size. Also IIRC a Windows 98 attached to an NTFS volume will return "NTFS" for that Drive. So If we need to to save large files (>2GB) reporting NTFS is the logical way to go. I dont think of it a lazy approach. I just can't see the benifit of a more elegant (complicated) solution. > >But if we extend supported filesystems, see what filesystems are >recognized today by Windows : > >floppies are FAT12 (is this vfat for Wine ?) > Currently FAT for wine Windows 98 returns FAT >hard drives => FAT32 / NTFS / HFS (unofficial) > drives < 128MB are always FAT16 (FAT in windows 98) Partitions over 2GB have to be FAT32 or NTFS. There is a FAT32x (extended) meant for Partitions over 8GB. I dont know what windows returns for this I am willing to bet FAT32. Microsoft says that the minimum recomended size for NTFS is 10 MB and a 1.44 floppy is too small to hold the MFT (Master File Table)which is a couple of MB by itself. HPFS is for OS2 compatability and not terribly relevant. >cdroms => CDFS / Audio / RAW > Windows 98 returns CDFS for audio CD's, CD's and CD-R's. (I don't have a CD-RW) Can anyone tell me of a time it returns anything else? > >dvds => udf > What does Windows report (in explorer "Right click - Properties)? My guess is that it reports CDFS So we The way I see it Windows knows about the following file systems. CDFS, FAT, FAT23, NTFS and HPFS. HPFS is irrelevent. CDFS covers all CD like Media. FAT will deal with all drives less that 2 GB. NTFS can be used with drive over 10MB. FAT32 can be ignored. -- Tony Lambregts

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Add filesytem type NTFS to config

by Tony Lambregts

Francois Gouget wrote: >On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Tony Lambregts wrote: >[...] > > >>>AFAIK, read-write CDs use a special filesystem so they probably get >>>their own value. >>> >>> > >Confirmed: you can use ISO9660 (or ext2fs for that matter), but if you >want to use your CDRW as a big floppy drive on Windows, then you would >use UDF (google CDRW UDF). > OK CD-W/RW and DVD-R/RW can use UDF (Universal Disk Format) but what is reported by the various flavors of windows (right click - Properties)? My guess - CDFS > > > > >>Samba probably reports whatever the share's underlying >> >> >>>filesystem is (at least if the server is a Windows machine). >>> >>> > >IIRC, right-click -> Properties on a shared drive tells you what >filesystem the remote computer is using for that filesystem. It does not >mean that Windows is not returning some strange value in the function >you are concerned about but I don't have a way of checking that. What >about providing a test app that would enumerate drives and dump the >values reported by Windows? > Is there a real need for such a conformance test. It seems to me that it would be of little value (right click - Properties tells us the same thing) I do not have another computer to test Samba but IIRC Novell returned FAT for its drives circa Novell 3.1. and again IIRC Windows 98 returns NTFS when connected to a NTFS drive on a NT Server. I could be wrong and have no way of checking for myself (aside from Google) > > > > >>I suspect >> >> >>>zip drives just use what the user chooses, i.e. FAT or VFAT, maybe FAT32 >>>though that seems quite unnecessary given their limited size. >>> >>> > >Confirmed. I asked a collegue who has a Zip drive and they behave just >like other removable media (floppies). So you use the usual way to >format such things so what you get is a FAT disk. Depends on your >Windows OS of course. On Windows 95 you would get VFAT, on Windows 98SE >you may get FAT32 instead. >Of course that does not mean that Windows is not checking that this is a >Zip drive+FAT combination to return 'foobar' rather than just FAT. But >it does seem relatively improbable. > There was some kind of calculation that windows 95/8 does. Past experience has indicated that drives less than 128 MB can not be formated FAT32. A quick search of google points out that disks that are smaller than 260 mb are formated with a sector size 512KB. So some drives in the range 128 - 265 that have a minimum (built in) sector size of 1024 (lots of them) cannot be formated FAT32 This is rather academic since even DVD-RW is limited to 1.7GB wich is less than the 2GB limit for FAT > > > > >>AFAICS you are just guessing. I can do that... but it is not a good way >>to build specs. >> >> > >Not really guessing. Just providing a dump of my fuzzy memories of past >experiences and stuff I read in the hope that it can guide your search >about an exhaustive list of Windows supported filesystems. > >You asked: Any other thing I missed? > >At least you missed the filesystem used for CDRW: UDF. Again maybe the >function you are concerned about will call that CDFS or billfs. But now >you know that you need to ask someone with a CDRW drive to check what >the function returns for that drive. > > > > It is not as if I could not make an educated guess myself about these things (and google is my friend) Most of the time FAT _works_ the fact that Virtual Dub checks for "FAT" is probably an annomaly. When dealing with *nix drives does it matter whether we tell it "FAT32" or "NTFS". They are both _LIES_, by adding "NTFS" It gives the user another CASE_PRESERVING option without confusing the user to much. I would still like to know (for sure) what is retured by the for network drives (NT, Novell, Samba, Mac Server?) The same goes for CD/DVD-R/RW using UDF. So far I have seen no advantage in doing something more elegant (complicated). -- Tony Lambregts

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: FHS vs LSB

by Steve Langasek

On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:20:29PM -0500, Tom Wickline wrote: > In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB > any objections ? > FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ > LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/ Given that complying with the FHS requires a handful of args passed to ./configure, and complying with the LSB requires a completely separate system to build your binaries on, that doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Indeed, if you're going to s/FHS/LSB/, there's no longer much point in having a Packager's Guide at all: at that point, all of the packages would be either binary-compatible or buggy, so the Guide would no longer serve the purpose of helping platform-specific packagers create good packages. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer

Jan. 16, 2003

FHS vs LSB

by Tom Wickline

In updating the Packagers Guide I plan to replace FHS with LSB any objections ? FHS = http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ LSB = http://www.linuxbase.org/ Tom

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Add check to SetMenuItemInfo

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Alistair Leslie" <aleslie(a)neumaflo.com.au> wrote: > Reading about the MENUITEMINFO structure. > Take from MSDN > The MFT_BITMAP, MFT_SEPARATOR, and MFT_STRING values cannot be combined with > one another. In that case the code which verifies MENUITEMINFO fields could be generalized. All existing checks in SetMenuItemInfoA should be removed and something like this should be added to SetMenuItemInfo_common: if (lpmii->fMask & MIIM_TYPE ) { if (lpmii->fType & MFT_BITMAP) { if (lpmii->fType & (MFT_SEPARATOR | MFT_STRING)) return FALSE; } else if (lpmii->fType & MFT_SEPARATOR) { if (lpmii->fType & (MFT_BITMAP | MFT_STRING)) return FALSE; } else if (lpmii->fType & MFT_STRING) { if (lpmii->fType & (MFT_BITMAP | MFT_SEPARATOR)) return FALSE; } } Mike, could you please try this approach and report whether it helps? -- Dmitry.

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Add check to SetMenuItemInfo

by Alexandre Julliard

"Dmitry Timoshkov" <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > I'm not opposed to your fix, not at all. I just would like to understand > better what is the real problem with our code. If you, or somebody else, > could confirm (by a test case) that exactly (MFT_BITMAP | MFT_SEPARATOR) > combination should be rejected then I'll vote for your patch. At least on NT4 it's not rejected. In fact NT seems to accept any combination of flags. I have removed the check for now. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Add check to SetMenuItemInfo

by Alistair Leslie

> I'm not opposed to your fix, not at all. I just would like to understand > better what is the real problem with our code. If you, or somebody else, > could confirm (by a test case) that exactly (MFT_BITMAP | MFT_SEPARATOR) > combination should be rejected then I'll vote for your patch. Reading about the MENUITEMINFO structure. Take from MSDN The MFT_BITMAP, MFT_SEPARATOR, and MFT_STRING values cannot be combined with one another. Hope this helps Alistair

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Add check to SetMenuItemInfo

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Mike Hearn" <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> wrote: > Well, you know a lot more about this than me, so if you think the check > shouldn't be added then that's fine. I'm not opposed to your fix, not at all. I just would like to understand better what is the real problem with our code. If you, or somebody else, could confirm (by a test case) that exactly (MFT_BITMAP | MFT_SEPARATOR) combination should be rejected then I'll vote for your patch. -- Dmitry.

Jan. 16, 2003

Re: Problems install ie5+ie6

by Sylvain Petreolle

is there a way to force IE install ? it is actually saying that a more recent version of IE is installed when I try to run ie6setup.exe. :/ --- "Brian Vincent (C)" <VincentB(a)coppercolorado.com> a écrit : > > > I downloaded the latest wine cvs tonight and compiled it on my > windows-less > > system. I ran ie6setup and ie5setup.exe and it downloads the data > from the > > web but has problems during installation. > > If your goal is to just run IE, then you may find this > helpful: > > http://frankscorner.org/wine/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index > &req=viewarticle&artid=125&page=1 > > If you're actually trying to hack Wine into getting it > to work.. well.. I suppose there's a lot of others on > this list that can help you more. > > --------------- > Brian Vincent > Copper Mountain Telecom > vincentb(a)coppercolorado.com > ===== Sylvain Petreolle spetreolle(a)users.sourceforge.net Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html ICQ #170597259 "Don't think you are. Know you are." Morpheus, in "Matrix". ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Jan. 15, 2003