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

Re: working together on stdole.tlb and a end to dcom9x

by Filip Navara

Jacek Caban wrote: [snip] > I don't thik it Wine's bug. Applications don't depend on this stuff > and Wine's ref handling is correct. Of course that applications depend on this stuff. This is common code: LoadTypeLib("stdole.tlb", &ptlibStdOle); ptlibStdOle->GetTypeInfoOfGuid(IID_IUnknown, &ptinfoIUnknown)); ptlibStdOle->GetTypeInfoOfGuid(IID_IDispatch, &ptinfoIDispatch)); ptlibStdOle->Release(); Now with Wine the last Release will cause the typelib object to be destroyed and resulting that any later typeinfo references to typelib are invalid pointers. Regards, Filip

Aug. 30, 2004

E-mail adress

by Davide Giannotti

I'm trying to fight spam like anybody else, and first thing is to remove mail adresses from every page on the internet. A google search on my adress shows only 2 pages where i compare, they both come frome wine archive: http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003.04.txt http://www.spinics.net/lists/wine/msg08863.html Is there a way to make them remove from there? Just a suggestion: i'm conscious that mail adress need to be post into such a mailing list, but wouldn't be good to keep a script running that alter them into something like 'myname {at} mydomain' ? Just a little sacrifice for everybody to help fighting spam. Think about.. pls... -- Davide Giannotti ITS Planet s.n.c davide.giannotti {at} itsplanet.com www.itsplanet.com

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: mixing SHELL32.DLL and SHFOLDER.DLL

by Alexandre Julliard

Saulius Krasuckas <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> writes: > You know it can take quite a long time, maybe several years. And I want > to run the apps right now. Then use native shfolder. And no, I don't think it would take several years to fix the builtins, a lot of apps work fine with them today, they are not that bad. > So, you basically disagree with moving SHGetFolder[AW] code from > shell32.dll to shfolder.dll, right? I don't think it's going to solve the problem. Pretty much the only way to make it work right in all cases is to duplicate the whole thing, and I don't see any good reason to do that. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: WineHQ - Hosted by PayPal

by Tom

Jeremy Newman wrote: > > The site is not hosted by PayPal, seems that having the two images right > next to each other is confusing. Does this confuse anyone else? NO! Should > we simply remove the donate link? Well if you want to eat at wineconf 2005 I would say NOOOOOOOOOO! :D Tom >

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: mixing SHELL32.DLL and SHFOLDER.DLL

by Saulius Krasuckas

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Saulius Krasuckas <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> writes: > > I would like to optimize Wine setup, where the optimization criterion is > > achieving as small amount of native dll code used as it can be possible > > (without loosing some required functionality). > > > > And combination of native shell32+shdocvw+shlwapi dlls are needed for mIRC > > and TotalCommander to function more properly. > > Then the proper way is to fix shell32 etc. so that these apps can run > with the builtins. You know it can take quite a long time, maybe several years. And I want to run the apps right now. > I don't think there's any reason to spend effort to allow all the shell > dlls to be native except shfolder, Lets say I am running out of space just for this 22 kBytes occupied by the native shfolder.dll. :-P > that's not a meaningful configuration. So, you basically disagree with moving SHGetFolder[AW] code from shell32.dll to shfolder.dll, right?

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: WineHQ - Hosted by PayPal

by Jeremy Newman

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 07:21, Tero Tamminen wrote: > On the right side, there is "Hosted by" and empty link to codeweavers > (<a href="http://www.codeweavers.com/"></a>). After that there is PayPal > link. Because <a href="http://www.codeweavers.com/"></a> is empty, it > seems that this site is hosted by PayPal (which should come after > codeweavers, I think). This could be said more clearly I think, but if > you go to the front page, you'll notice it. Its not an empty link. That PayPal image is actually a submit button to a hidden form that takes you to our donation page. The site is not hosted by PayPal, seems that having the two images right next to each other is confusing. Does this confuse anyone else? Should we simply remove the donate link? -- _ _ WebGeek/SysAdmin CodeWeavers -= http://www.codeweavers.com | \| |_____ __ ___ __ __ _ _ _ -= http://www.dracowulf.com | .` / -_) | | / ' \/ _` | ' \ -= mailto:jnewman(a)codeweavers.com |_|\_\___|\_/\_/|_|_|_\__,_|_||_| -= ICQ: 1711553 Yahoo: laxdragon

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: mixing SHELL32.DLL and SHFOLDER.DLL

by Juan Lang

Salius wrote: > I am sure shfolder.dll from win98se installation > calls GetProcAddress() to get the address of > SHGetFolderPathW @ shell32.dll. Moreover, my > shell32.dll doesn't export SHGetSpecialFolderPath* > by a name, also. Hm. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear enough. From MSDN on SHGetFolderPath: This function is a superset of SHGetSpecialFolderPath, included with earlier versions of the Shell. On systems preceeding those including Shell32.dll version 5.0 (Windows Millennium Edition (Windows Me) and Windows 2000), SHGetFolderPath was obtained through SHFolder.dll, distributed with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 and later versions. SHFolder.dll always calls the current platform's version of this function. If that fails, it will try to simulate the appropriate behavior. So, I think your patch is a good first step, to use GetProcAddress rather than letting the linker do it. A next step would be, I think, to do what I suggested: if this fails, try to GetProcAddress for SHGetSpecialFolderPath, since this was available on older versions of shell32. You might have to search by ordinal if searching by name fails. So, I don't think my suggestion is that different from Juergen's, just that I suggest an implementation of "try to simulate the appropriate behavior" if the function is not in fact in shell32. --Juan _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: wineserver epoll

by Alexandre Julliard

Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel(a)shemesh.biz> writes: > But what to do if the library functions exist during compilation, and > do not during runtime? Merely linking with them will cause wineserver > not to load, claiming that it requires "GLIBC version 3.2.3". Some > wine uses (crossover office being one of them) require you to compile > once and run almost everywhere, which run counter to this behavior. Building with a recent glibc and running on an older one is not supported by glibc, and it won't work for many reasons having nothing to do with epoll. Crossover runs everywhere because it is built against a very old glibc. > Just yank the definitions from the header? I can do that, the license > is compatible. However, I think it's pointless. Most systems will have > that header, and for those who don't, we will have a fallback. What's > wrong with using the header if it's there? The libc definitions must be used with the libc function, and the kernel definitions with the system call. There is no guarantee at all that they will remain identical (check the 64-bit file support for an example of how that can happen). -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Aug. 30, 2004

Re: mixing SHELL32.DLL and SHFOLDER.DLL

by Alexandre Julliard

Saulius Krasuckas <saulius2(a)ar.fi.lt> writes: > I would like to optimize Wine setup, where the optimization criterion is > achieving as small amount of native dll code used as it can be possible > (without loosing some required functionality). > > And combination of native shell32+shdocvw+shlwapi dlls are needed for mIRC > and TotalCommander to function more properly. Then the proper way is to fix shell32 etc. so that these apps can run with the builtins. I don't think there's any reason to spend effort to allow all the shell dlls to be native except shfolder, that's not a meaningful configuration. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Aug. 30, 2004

Linux registry

by Robert van Herk

Not knowing how much off topic this would be, I just thought I paste a link here: http://registry.sourceforge.net/ These people seem to be implementing a kinda Windows registry clone into Linux, but then secure, stable 'n' stuff... Since the many registry implementation discussions here, I thought, why not throw this into the discussion too? It might be worth to take a look here and perhaps think about using some of their stuff. Greetings, Robert van Herk

Aug. 30, 2004