June 2004 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Attn Christian - Last texops patch
by Ann and Jason Edmeades June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

Hi Christian - I tried to sent you an email but it bounced... Are you sure that patch is correct (I've only glanced at it though!), as I thought the src1 was set from GetSrvcAndOpFromValue, and this should already handle the ONE_MINUS* type values? Jason

1 0

Re: Fix winedbg stack_backtrace on non i386
by Eric Pouech June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

emmanuel maillard a écrit : > Hi, > > stack.c fail to build on ppc host due to CONTEXT_SEGMENTS flag, wich is > only define for i386 host. > > > ChangeLog: > Fix compilation error on non-i386 in stack_backtrace. > we shouldn't need the __i386__ tests in the winedbg code, except in the CPU specific files (be_*.c). IMO, we should do something like this: Index: stack.c =================================================================== RCS file: /home/cvs/cvsroot/wine/wine/programs/winedbg/stack.c,v retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -u -r1.3 stack.c --- stack.c 4 Jun 2004 00:59:16 -0000 1.3 +++ stack.c 20 Jun 2004 07:45:37 -0000 @@ -119,7 +119,11 @@ return; } memset(&ctx, 0, sizeof(ctx)); - ctx.ContextFlags = CONTEXT_CONTROL | CONTEXT_SEGMENTS; + ctx.ContextFlags = CONTEXT_CONTROL +#ifdef CONTEXT_SEGMENTS + | CONTEXT_SEGMENTS +#endif + ; if (SuspendThread(thread->handle) == -1 || !GetThreadContext(thread->handle, &ctx))

1 0

Re: Msg reply
by Johane June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

1 0

RE: Incoming Msg
by Twickline June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

1 0

Lotus SmartSuite '97 nonfunctional
by Dan Kegel June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

In the same yard sale where I bought Lotus SmartSuite '96 (whose Lotus 1-2-3 works under wine-20040615), I also bought the '97 version. I had numerous problems with the '97 version. Its installer failed while installing Word Pro (though it seemed to install Lotus 1-2-3). Lotus 1-2-3 fails with numerous errors when loading a small file or even starting without any file. Something (maybe heavier use of OLE?) changed from the '96 to '97 versions such that Wine is much less happy running the '97 version. If anyone's interested, I can post more details. - Dan -- My technical stuff: http://kegel.com My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change

1 0

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

> Why is that? Adam Schreiber may know as slackware he build 2 binaries for slack users using xfree86 and x.org, you can reach him at shipssadam -at - clemson.edu Ivan.

1 0

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

> Maybe, but for example Mandrake users won't get wine listed in the "remove > software" utility, and that will be confusing > Solving that problem is a desktop issue, I've done a bit of work on it but nothing has got into mainstream yet. OK, but in the mean time I still don't see how one binary can fit all needs, if a binary build for X.org wo'nt run on XFree86 and vice-versa > I don't see why it'd slow down after we freeze libwine, it's not that > many functions... Not all users care, some people still use linux 1.0 > So the user has to upgrade ... and ? use CVS even if he didn't/doesn't want to, that isn't a bug issue but it also isn't a nice thing. > So it could have been anything, in other words. I'd need to see hard > figures in a controlled environment. I can send you a copy of Linux Magazine, I should still have a copy somewhere. You'll have to translate it with google or something because it's in Italian. Also, form sutopackage.org > Nobody should produce any .package files for their own projects until we've hit version 1 I guess we won't be using it too soon anyway.

1 0

IconsDir
by Vitaly Lipatov June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

Does anyone knows why we have not in registry Software\\Wine\\Wine\\Config\\Wine\IconsDir entry? winemenubuilder can't extract any icons without this dir. -- Lav Vitaly Lipatov Russia, Saint-Petersburg GNU! ALT Linux Team! LaTeX! LyX!

1 0

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

About building one binary of wine for all distros, it's interesting to notice that one the same distro you need different binaries depending on if you're using xfree86 or x.org. Ivan.

2 1

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

> Anyway, Wine doesn't have any menu > integration. And why shouldn't we have the wine programs in the menu? > Compiling it as i586 or i686 should be fine, very few people use > processors old enough to barf on it Sure. > That's what apbuild solves. It lets you compile for glibc 2.2 on a 2.3 > system, amongst other things. And what if the user wants a glibc 2.3 build? > Yes, we still do that, but most people use the Loki installer - in fact > I'm pretty sure it's the most popular by a long way. Maybe, but for example Mandrake users won't get wine listed in the "remove software" utility, and that will be confusing > 1.0 implies API stability, not that it's suddenly good enough that > people won't want to upgrade. I presume by then wine won't change so quickly. And the average user (the average pc user, not the average linux geek) is lazy and often doesn't upgrade if he doesn't have to > That's entirely wrong, it works fine. What did you think the recent > high-gig mmap patches were for? they won't help wine-20040615 any more. > Also some distros are built for i386, others for i586 and others for i686, how can you > have one binary for all, force them to all use i386 (That will be about 30% > slower that a i586 build)? > Just build them for i586 or i686, like I said, that should work just > fine. I really doubt anybody is running Wine on a system that can't cope > with an i586 compiled binary. 30% sounds extremely high anyway, I'd want > to see hard figures on that. That was a benchmark done by comparing Red Hat and Mandrake, it was a few months ago. > Sure, it may be possible to build one binary and run > it anywhere, but in most cases it wouldn't run as well (and as fast) as a build > done natively on the distro. Actually, yes it is. Go read the docs on autopackage.org to find out how. > would be somewhat suboptimal as we sacrifice speed for flexibility and distro neutrality. Do we NEED to sacrifice such things? Also we can't use it until version 1.0, it will be reasonable to look at this then. Ivan.

2 1