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

Re: A little Xlib adventure

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On April 29, 2003 08:59 am, Mike Hearn wrote: > + /* set the pid. together, these properties are needed so the window > manager can kill us if we freeze */ Wrapped patch alert! :) -- Dimi.

April 29, 2003

RE: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Patrik Stridvall

> > Well, the point is that i'm pretty sure that both Trolltech (and the > > KDE project) would very much like to Qt themed Wine in order to > > compete in the desktop market so I'm sure it would be possible to > > get some sort of "deal" somehow. > > > > Perhaps just releasing the Qt drawing primatives implementation > > under the LGPL would be a solution that would be acceptable > > to all parties. I can't see Trolltech losing very much from > doing that. > > > > No work at all (except convincing Trolltech to do that). > > Hehehe, yeah, that's the hard part, especially as the > difference between > Qt/X11 and Qt/Win32 is mostly the drawing primitives/window creation > code. Ah OK. Minor problem. :-( Why can't they make Qt/Win32 GPL:ed as well with the exception of the drawing primitives that have to become LGPL:ed. They released Qt/X11 under the GPL, since the GPL according to their interpretation will protect them from "free commercial use". Why not release Qt/Win32 under the GPL as well? > Bah. This is stupid. Before we start adding theming to Wine, I think > somebody should at least make an attempt at a unified theming > standard. > Otherwise we're just going to end up with huge amounts of bloat and > duplication in Wine already. A standard system would be much > better. No, > I don't have time for that :( Agreed. This is a post 1.0 issue IMHO.

April 29, 2003

Re: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Mike Hearn

> Is this in the context of the IWebBrowser interface? That is, how we go > about providing an implementation for that interface? Well if so, I think > it would be nice if we could have both khtml and gecko as backends for > it. In fact, I think it'd be easier to have mozilla as a backend as they > already implement the IWebBrowser interface. But that's just me talking, > I should give this a try -- but after the 0.9 release! :) A gecko backend would be handy for apps that use MSHTML just as a convenience for browsing the web yeah, for apps that actually use the various quirks of IE and such we'd need to be able to control our own fork. Not sure how we'd detect which one to use. > Yes, I agree on this one -- I've said multiple times that implementing the > theming API is the way forward. In fact, separating the drawing code will > cleanup the controls I think, as we'll have a better separation between the > presentation and logic layers. Moreover, it will allow us to have a cleaner > solution for the win311, win95, win98, winxp looks. > > But again, this looks like a post 1.0 project. We need to fix a lot of > things in the controls for the 1.0 release anyway. I think it's more > important to the a working set of controls, rather than a themable set > of broken controls :). Agreed. Theming and WebBrowser implementation is cool, but there's still way too much work to do just to let people install things reliably etc first. -- Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

April 29, 2003

RE: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Mike Hearn

> Well, the point is that i'm pretty sure that both Trolltech (and the > KDE project) would very much like to Qt themed Wine in order to > compete in the desktop market so I'm sure it would be possible to > get some sort of "deal" somehow. > > Perhaps just releasing the Qt drawing primatives implementation > under the LGPL would be a solution that would be acceptable > to all parties. I can't see Trolltech losing very much from doing that. > > No work at all (except convincing Trolltech to do that). Hehehe, yeah, that's the hard part, especially as the difference between Qt/X11 and Qt/Win32 is mostly the drawing primitives/window creation code. Bah. This is stupid. Before we start adding theming to Wine, I think somebody should at least make an attempt at a unified theming standard. Otherwise we're just going to end up with huge amounts of bloat and duplication in Wine already. A standard system would be much better. No, I don't have time for that :( -- Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

April 29, 2003

Re: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On April 29, 2003 02:46 am, Gregory M. Turner wrote: > 3) (the original thread I believe?) what are the prospects of using wine as > a window manager? Man, am I misunderstood or what? :) No, I've never suggested we use wine as a window manager. In fact, I explicitly said I don't what to needlessly duplicate code. Using the gnome panel & window manager, and what have you is good enough for me. > As for the browser issue, it's been discussed on the list ad infinitum and > the consensus was that we should lean towards konq integration. Is this in the context of the IWebBrowser interface? That is, how we go about providing an implementation for that interface? Well if so, I think it would be nice if we could have both khtml and gecko as backends for it. In fact, I think it'd be easier to have mozilla as a backend as they already implement the IWebBrowser interface. But that's just me talking, I should give this a try -- but after the 0.9 release! :) > If you ask me, we should look to implement the (undocumented?) XP skinning > API's -- with a deliberite sprinkling of internal extensions to clean up > some of the messy parts if they are too slow for "built in" wine skins. Yes, I agree on this one -- I've said multiple times that implementing the theming API is the way forward. In fact, separating the drawing code will cleanup the controls I think, as we'll have a better separation between the presentation and logic layers. Moreover, it will allow us to have a cleaner solution for the win311, win95, win98, winxp looks. But again, this looks like a post 1.0 project. We need to fix a lot of things in the controls for the 1.0 release anyway. I think it's more important to the a working set of controls, rather than a themable set of broken controls :). -- Dimi.

April 29, 2003

Re: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On April 29, 2003 07:50 am, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > Well, the point is that i'm pretty sure that both Trolltech (and the > KDE project) would very much like to Qt themed Wine in order to > compete in the desktop market so I'm sure it would be possible to > get some sort of "deal" somehow. That'd be great -- do you mind getting in touch with them on this issue? They do have an incentive go give us such a permission, it will be an interesting experiment. -- Dimi.

April 29, 2003

RE: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Patrik Stridvall

> > Well, I can't see why Trolltech (the owners of Qt) would object. > > > > Presumably the main reason that you would want a Qt skin for > > Windows application running under Wine is that you run several > > other Unix applications using Qt... > > > > So I can't see why they wouldn't give us special permission > > if we for some reason would need it... > > I'm not sure it's quite that simple though. IIRC Qt/KDE themes use the > Qt drawing primitives (like gtk skins do with gdk). Unfortunately, > Qt/Win32 is not free software, so we'd have to stub out Qt with Win32 > equivalents in order to allow Qt skins to draw correctly. As GDK is > already ported to Win32 though, that'd be easier to use. > > I'm sure if somebody was motivated enough they could do so, and we may > need to stub out Qt anyway for KHTML at some point. But it's a lot of > work. Well, the point is that i'm pretty sure that both Trolltech (and the KDE project) would very much like to Qt themed Wine in order to compete in the desktop market so I'm sure it would be possible to get some sort of "deal" somehow. Perhaps just releasing the Qt drawing primatives implementation under the LGPL would be a solution that would be acceptable to all parties. I can't see Trolltech losing very much from doing that. No work at all (except convincing Trolltech to do that).

April 29, 2003

bugs.winehq.com

by hatky

Hi all, I am not sure if this is the place to disscuse it but I have mailed bugs(a)winehq.com and web-admin(a)winehq.org and have yet to get a replay So my question is: "Am I the only one who can not retrive his password?" I mean it's saying mail sent and stuff but I am not getting it. I tried it a few times doing the last few days and I do not get any mail. I think it can be becouse of some configuration on the new server or it can be my sf.net filltering (it claimed to have one when I first registered a long time ago but with no details).... Hatky. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com

April 29, 2003

Re: Fix loading icon from resource

by Maxime Bellengé

yes but you have to use my olepicture patch that I sent to wine-patches. It is not yet in cvs ( Alexandre, is there a problem with it ?) . a+ Max On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 11:52, BiGgUn wrote: > Hi > > Did you successfully load the splashscreen of emule ? I got a strange > biased image instead of a clean one :-\ > > Stephan -- Maxime Bellengé <maxime.bellenge(a)laposte.net>

April 29, 2003

RE: Wine, WIDE & Unix (was: Support for pkgconfig)

by Mike Hearn

> Well, I can't see why Trolltech (the owners of Qt) would object. > > Presumably the main reason that you would want a Qt skin for > Windows application running under Wine is that you run several > other Unix applications using Qt... > > So I can't see why they wouldn't give us special permission > if we for some reason would need it... I'm not sure it's quite that simple though. IIRC Qt/KDE themes use the Qt drawing primitives (like gtk skins do with gdk). Unfortunately, Qt/Win32 is not free software, so we'd have to stub out Qt with Win32 equivalents in order to allow Qt skins to draw correctly. As GDK is already ported to Win32 though, that'd be easier to use. I'm sure if somebody was motivated enough they could do so, and we may need to stub out Qt anyway for KHTML at some point. But it's a lot of work. > The alternative a GTK skinned only Wine would not benefit them > at all, quite the opposite. > -- Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center

April 29, 2003