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

Website Question

by dd jj

Hello Everyone, Does anyone know a website listing all the Win32 API calls and their X window API equivalents or Unix command equivalents? Thank you --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

July 31, 2003

Re: Trackbar size fixes

by BiGgUn

> As BiGgUn suggests, in TRACKBAR_InitializeThumb, setting: > infoPtr->uThumbLen = 21; In this case 21 is a magic number. In fact, infoPtr->uThumbLen equals SM_CYCAPTION. Stephan

July 31, 2003

Re: Licensing Question

by Steven Edwards

The interfaces are public information and can be gotten from any number of means. I dont know why we even have license information in the headers as it has caused confusion from day 1 the LGPL statment was added. If you are still worried about using the WINE headers to fix Mingw (It needs it) then use ReWind. Thanks Steven > Op donderdag 31 juli 2003 16:24, schreef Anthony Tuininga: > > The MingW32 project is developing its own set of Windows headers under a > > different license than Wine (which uses LGPL, right?) and I have noticed > > (using both projects) that the Wine headers are more complete in a > > number of areas. I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use the > > Wine headers as a source for filling in gaps in the MinGW32 headers? In > > essence, would the Wine group be willing to allow this cross pollination > > since (clearly) it would be a violation of the licenses as they stand > > today. Any thoughts on this? Or am I treading into a minefield?? :-) > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

July 31, 2003

Re: Licensing Question

by Joerg Mayer

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 07:52:40PM +0200, Roderick Colenbrander wrote: > Likely a vote for it would be needed since I think > all people who worked on the headers need to approve it. Well, as you mention correctly in the second part: Everyone who submitted patches under a LGPL license only *must* agree to have their code reclicensed. Calling that a vote reminds me of some pseudo democracies .... Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.

July 31, 2003

Re: Cabinet problems in latest wine cvs

by Gregory M. Turner

On Thursday 31 July 2003 02:57 pm, Boris wrote: > When attempting to install Office 2000 under the latest wine from cvs, It > stops half way through the installation with the following error. > > > err:cabinet:FDICopy FDIIsCabinet failed. Any ideas? This rollup of the recent cabinet patches should fix it. -- gmt

July 31, 2003

Cabinet problems in latest wine cvs

by Boris

When attempting to install Office 2000 under the latest wine from cvs, It stops half way through the installation with the following error. err:cabinet:FDICopy FDIIsCabinet failed. Any ideas?

July 31, 2003

Re: Licensing Question

by Vincent Béron

Le jeu 31/07/2003 à 13:52, Roderick Colenbrander a écrit : > Although Wine is LGPL'ed now, older wine versions (till around march/april > 2002 I think) are X11 licensed. Further there is a "fork" of Wine called > Rewind which is more up2date than the last X11 edition of Wine. So those > things can atleast be used by the mingw project. > > Relicensing parts of the current Wine is more complicated. I'm not the right > person to talk about that. Likely a vote for it would be needed since I think > all people who worked on the headers need to approve it. I'd say it's the same thing as MS headers: you can't directly copy them (MS's or Wine's), but the #defines FOO 123, etc. can be used (since they're factual and needed for work correctly). Somebody (dis)agree with this? ReWind can be used directly, as it's license allow you to do that. But keep in mind that many times, Wine's headers have Wine specific parts, which Mingw will probably have to ditch or modify. Vincent

July 31, 2003

Re: Licensing Question

by Roderick Colenbrander

Although Wine is LGPL'ed now, older wine versions (till around march/april 2002 I think) are X11 licensed. Further there is a "fork" of Wine called Rewind which is more up2date than the last X11 edition of Wine. So those things can atleast be used by the mingw project. Relicensing parts of the current Wine is more complicated. I'm not the right person to talk about that. Likely a vote for it would be needed since I think all people who worked on the headers need to approve it. Roderick Colenbrander Op donderdag 31 juli 2003 16:24, schreef Anthony Tuininga: > The MingW32 project is developing its own set of Windows headers under a > different license than Wine (which uses LGPL, right?) and I have noticed > (using both projects) that the Wine headers are more complete in a > number of areas. I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use the > Wine headers as a source for filling in gaps in the MinGW32 headers? In > essence, would the Wine group be willing to allow this cross pollination > since (clearly) it would be a violation of the licenses as they stand > today. Any thoughts on this? Or am I treading into a minefield?? :-)

July 31, 2003

Licensing Question

by Anthony Tuininga

The MingW32 project is developing its own set of Windows headers under a different license than Wine (which uses LGPL, right?) and I have noticed (using both projects) that the Wine headers are more complete in a number of areas. I was wondering if it would be acceptable to use the Wine headers as a source for filling in gaps in the MinGW32 headers? In essence, would the Wine group be willing to allow this cross pollination since (clearly) it would be a violation of the licenses as they stand today. Any thoughts on this? Or am I treading into a minefield?? :-) -- Anthony Tuininga anthony(a)computronix.com Computronix Distinctive Software. Real People. Suite 200, 10216 - 124 Street NW Edmonton, AB, Canada T5N 4A3 Phone: (780) 454-3700 Fax: (780) 454-3838 http://www.computronix.com

July 31, 2003

Re: Expect deadlock!

by Marcelo Duarte

Hum.... Well, I know in my program when this happen. If I run wine --debugmsg +gdi I can folow the problem? What are your sugestion? Thank you. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hearn" <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> To: "Marcelo Duarte" <wine-devel(a)bol.com.br> Cc: <wine-devel(a)winehq.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:48 PM Subject: Re: Expect deadlock! > I'd like to know this too. Spending ten minutes on Google revealed > little - all references to syslevels in the context on Win32 pointed > back to WineHQ, so it seems to be either undocumented (likely) or a Wine > internal thing (from the name of the functions, I'd guess that it's > undocumented MS stuff). > > In particular, this error occurred today while doing a demo for my boss > (he knew this particular action would cause a freeze/crash but he wanted > to see what it would do under Wine). He wanted to know what it meant, > and obviously I couldn't really tell him. > > It seems to be something to do with locking 16 bit parts of the code, > and I found an email from Andi Mohr talking about "syslevel violations > being an ongoing problem". Level 3 is "GDI Level", but I don't know what > level 2 is. The relevant file (scheduler/syslevel.c) is no help at all. > > On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 06:05, Marcelo Duarte wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Somebody could help saying me what it means the messages below and where I > > must look for to finish with them? > > > > Thank you! > > > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > > err:win32:_EnterSysLevel (0x4087eda8, level 2): Holding 0x4092f8e0, level 3. > > Expect deadlock! > -- > Mike Hearn <m.hearn(a)signal.qinetiq.com> > QinetiQ - Malvern Technology Center > >

July 31, 2003