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

Re: New EXE

by Ivan Leo Murray-Smith

>Yes, it would be nice to have more frequent releases, but we would have >trouble labeling them...unless we stick to the build date. But in that >case, we have to have a well understood convention on what YYYYMMDD >means in terms of time, and we have to stick to it (well, the person >building this should). Any takers? What about an automatic build?

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: Source release and download directory

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On August 31, 2003 01:18 pm, Jakob Eriksson wrote: > http://vmlinux.org/jakov/Wine/ A few comments: -- The archive seems to be missing main.c -- I think it belongs in programs/ rather than tools -- Why do we need the entire xd distribution. It's public domain, just copy what you need from it. -- I'd rather have an explicit list of tests to include, rather than a dynamic find. -- For consistency we the other stuff we have, I'd name it winetests. -- We need to integrate it into our build system. -- Dimi.

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: New EXE

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On August 31, 2003 07:18 pm, Vincent Béron wrote: > (And why haven't you installed SP3 yet? You've read the EULA for it? :)) Nah, I'm just lazy :) I don't use Windows much... > > In other words, the stuff returned by GetVersionEx(): > > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/ > >base/getversionex.asp > > Of course, this would be the easiest way to categorize versions. But how > much "original" is the version? What has been installed since then? I > know you can't really trust the DLL versions either... Well, we need to go by something. A full dump of the stuff returned by GetVersionEx is a must. Also, for eash of the DLLs we care about, would be nice to have some info in case we find failures we can't explain otherwise. > > > > -- I haven't checked, I hope it also cleans up after itself :) > > > > > > I am afraid it does not. I decided not to for now, since I wanted to > > > run the tests manually in case of trouble. > > > > But this should be more a development mode. Maybe just a switch to > > turn off cleanup should suffice. For those who care, they can run > > it with the switch. Otherwise, always cleanup. > > Can we assume that individual tests will cleanup after themselves? Maybe they do, but we still unpack some files, we should just erase the entire temp dir we create, unless we're told not to do so. It's just good manners :) > I don't know if at each release is frequent enough. What about > bi-weekly? Or after a set number of CVS commits by Alexandre? > I agree for sf.net for downloading though. We'll need to exactly label > what they are and how to use them productively. Yes, it would be nice to have more frequent releases, but we would have trouble labeling them...unless we stick to the build date. But in that case, we have to have a well understood convention on what YYYYMMDD means in terms of time, and we have to stick to it (well, the person building this should). Any takers? -- Dimi.

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: New EXE

by Vincent Béron

Le dim 31/08/2003 à 19:01, Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit : > On August 30, 2003 04:16 pm, Jakob Eriksson wrote: > > Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > > -- We should look for and report the exact version number > > > of the OS. Now that we have a C program, it should not > > > be difficult. > > > > ============================================================== > > Tests prepared Aug 30 2003 > > Operating system version: > > 5.0 Service Pack 2 - NT family 2000 > > Yes, but I was looking for something more exact. For example, > on my laptop, My Computer's Properties report: > Microsoft Windows 2000 > 5.00.2195 > Service Pack 2 Of those, only the SP will change when installing newer SPs. The build number will stay the same. NT 4.0 was build 1381 from the original CDs to SP6a. (And why haven't you installed SP3 yet? You've read the EULA for it? :)) > > In other words, the stuff returned by GetVersionEx(): > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/ba… Of course, this would be the easiest way to categorize versions. But how much "original" is the version? What has been installed since then? I know you can't really trust the DLL versions either... > > > > -- I haven't checked, I hope it also cleans up after itself :) > > > > I am afraid it does not. I decided not to for now, since I wanted to > > run the tests manually in case of trouble. > > But this should be more a development mode. Maybe just a switch to > turn off cleanup should suffice. For those who care, they can run > it with the switch. Otherwise, always cleanup. Can we assume that individual tests will cleanup after themselves? > > > >This is shaping up nicely. What we still need to do: > > > -- enlist someone for building this binary on every release, > > > and upload it to WineHQ. > > > > This is built with cross-mingw, so the build should be done at the same > > time Wine is tagged in releases, IMHO. > > Indeed, I was just pointing out that someone needs to do the build, and > uploaded to SourceForge for others to download. I don't know if at each release is frequent enough. What about bi-weekly? Or after a set number of CVS commits by Alexandre? I agree for sf.net for downloading though. We'll need to exactly label what they are and how to use them productively. Vincent

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: New EXE

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On August 30, 2003 04:16 pm, Jakob Eriksson wrote: > Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > -- We should look for and report the exact version number > > of the OS. Now that we have a C program, it should not > > be difficult. > > ============================================================== > Tests prepared Aug 30 2003 > Operating system version: > 5.0 Service Pack 2 - NT family 2000 Yes, but I was looking for something more exact. For example, on my laptop, My Computer's Properties report: Microsoft Windows 2000 5.00.2195 Service Pack 2 In other words, the stuff returned by GetVersionEx(): http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/ba… > > -- I haven't checked, I hope it also cleans up after itself :) > > I am afraid it does not. I decided not to for now, since I wanted to > run the tests manually in case of trouble. But this should be more a development mode. Maybe just a switch to turn off cleanup should suffice. For those who care, they can run it with the switch. Otherwise, always cleanup. > >This is shaping up nicely. What we still need to do: > > -- enlist someone for building this binary on every release, > > and upload it to WineHQ. > > This is built with cross-mingw, so the build should be done at the same > time Wine is tagged in releases, IMHO. Indeed, I was just pointing out that someone needs to do the build, and uploaded to SourceForge for others to download. -- Dimi.

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: Bugzilla bug #556

by Francois Gouget

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Dave Miller wrote: > Bug 556 is "reconcile the windows and wine spec files." The point I think > is make sure all windows APIs are listed, and listed correctly. I have a > question... If a particular API has four different ordinals in four > different windows versions, what goes in the spec file? You can see an > example of what I mean here: > http://24.229.94.2/cgi-bin/query.cgi?version=&status=&type=&ordinal=&api=SH… It means the API is not exported by ordinal. Such APIs are sorted in alphabetical order and just get whatever ordinal number corresponds from that order. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ 1 + e ^ ( i * pi ) = 0

Aug. 31, 2003

Source release and download directory

by Jakob Eriksson

Source release and download directory: http://vmlinux.org/jakov/Wine/

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: [winecfg 1.1] Implement saveConfigValue(), style changes, code cleanup, UI alignment

by Dustin Navea

--- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dustin Navea wrote: > [...] > > Not sure how possible this is or if it has already been thought of just > let > > me know, but what about loading the config into memory and having wine > make > > it look like the registry while loaded (ie for windows regedit). > > I believe Wine already does somethin like this, but maybe not. > > > [...] > > wine can do > > the processing of both the registry and the config, and then when it is > time > > to save the changes done in regedit, wine sorts it out between what needs > to > > be written to the actual registry and what needs to be written to the > config > > file. > > But in any case, this is where you hit problems. When loading the > registry or the configuration, Wine simply ignores the comments. And > when saving the changes Wine rewrites the registry file from scratch. If > we do the same for the configuration file it means we loose all the > comments, making it pointless to put them in in the first place... hmm, I thought that that was why we have the saveonlyupdatedkeys option was to have it only write the keys whose values had changed.. I guess I was mistaken then. How come we rewrite the entire registry, and not just the new/changed data? It seems to me like that would be a CPU cycle killer when it comes to writing that sort of stuff, if the registry is any more than like (i guess?) 10 megs > Of course we could have a special case for the configuration file so > that we keep the comments in memory, maybe also keep the file layout and > then merge the changes when we save. But that means using a different > codebase for the settings and for the registry which I believe is the > opposite of what we want to do by moving the settings to the registry. What if it were to read the comments into a/some comments variable/s and then treat the config file as part of the registry? Or would that still be too much of a different codebase? ===== -- Dustin Navea Minor Contributor, http://www.winehq.com Bugzilla Janitor, http://bugs.winehq.com Network Admin, irc://irc.blynk.net (down) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: Bugzilla bug #556

by Dimitrie O. Paun

On August 31, 2003 04:02 am, Dave Miller wrote: > If a particular API has four different ordinals in four > different windows versions, what goes in the spec file? I guess it doesn't matter, and it should go in with an automatic ordinal, that is '@'. -- Dimi.

Aug. 31, 2003

Re: gethostbyname() feature.

by Jakob Eriksson

Maybe you could write a regression test for this function? Rein Klazes wrote: >hi, > >In the newsgroup someone reported a crash in gethostbyname() when the >application called it with a null parameter. > >msdn says about this: > >| If null is provided in the name parameter, the returned string is >| the same as the string returned by a successful gethostname >| function call. > >gethostbyname does not return a string, but I think this it what they >meant to say. >I have tested gethostbyname under Win2K to do this. > >Changelog: > dlls/winsock : socket.c async.c > _ws_gethostbyname() and WSAAsyncGetHostByName() when called with > a null name, should use the name returned by gethostname(). > >Rein. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >--- wine/dlls/winsock/socket.c 2003-08-31 10:00:10.000000000 +0200 >+++ mywine/dlls/winsock/socket.c 2003-08-31 09:59:16.000000000 +0200 >@@ -2903,6 +2903,16 @@ > int ebufsize=1024; > struct hostent hostentry; > int locerr = ENOBUFS; >+#endif >+ char buf[100]; >+ if( !name) { >+ name = buf; >+ if( gethostname( buf, 100) == -1) { >+ SetLastError( WSAENOBUFS); /* appropriate ? */ >+ return retval; >+ } >+ } >+#ifdef HAVE_LINUX_GETHOSTBYNAME_R_6 > host = NULL; > extrabuf=HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(),0,ebufsize) ; > while(extrabuf) { >--- wine/dlls/winsock/async.c 2003-08-31 10:00:10.000000000 +0200 >+++ mywine/dlls/winsock/async.c 2003-08-31 09:47:31.000000000 +0200 >@@ -402,6 +402,16 @@ > int ebufsize=1024; > struct hostent hostentry; > int locerr = ENOBUFS; >+#endif >+ char buf[100]; >+ if( !(aq->host_name)) { >+ aq->host_name = buf; >+ if( gethostname( buf, 100) == -1) { >+ fail = WSAENOBUFS; /* appropriate ? */ >+ break; >+ } >+ } >+#ifdef HAVE_LINUX_GETHOSTBYNAME_R_6 > he = NULL; > extrabuf=HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(),0,ebufsize) ; > while(extrabuf) { > >

Aug. 31, 2003