October 2007 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Support GCOV for Wine 1.0?

by Dan Kegel

On 10/12/07, Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> wrote: > This is developer's info, and I think most developers > rather use the wiki than the other types of documentation. I think the real problem is that the website uses a template system that is hard to preview. The advantage of the wiki is that previewing is easy. The disadvantages of the wiki are a) it's not stored in git b) there's no way to do local editing and previewing c) the formatting is crap It'd be nice to have the best of both worlds, i.e. a wiki backed by git, and written in such a way that users who preferred to avoid online editing could use git to edit it locally, using an easy local preview tool, with strong formatting capabilities (like html) instead of the unhappy situation we have now, where formatting is an unreliable mystery. The other good thing about our wiki is that it has very good uptime and performance (thanks Dimi). - Dan

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: Support GCOV for Wine 1.0?

by Dimi Paun

On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:01 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > Yes, we should remove all web pages from the entire > web and put them in a wiki. I think he meant that at least a link should be made from the Wiki :) This is developer's info, and I think most developers rather use the wiki than the other types of documentation. -- Dimi Paun <dimi(a)lattica.com> Lattica, Inc.

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: defining and revamping our bugzilla categories

by Jan Zerebecki

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 11:09:53AM -0500, James Hawkins wrote: > On 10/12/07, Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Steven Edwards wrote: > > One more issue to raise: is the reason why we have 'wine-' as the prefix > > to avoid conflicts between different products? That is, if we have a > > 'printing' category in the 'Wine' product, is it going to interfer with > > the 'printing' category of a 'Wine-doc' product? > You'd think bugzilla would be more dynamic. For example, if you > choose WineHQ.org as the product, then you only get components > available to that product. Unfortunately, I don't think it works that > way. In bugzilla components are per product (i.e. you can have a printing component in Wine and Wine-doc and they are two different ones). > > [...] > > > > gdi > > > > printing > > [...] > > > Yes I second this motion. The components should be named as simply as > > > possible. Users are going to be the ones filing the reports and > > > whoever is doing triage is going to have to move it around if its in > > > the wrong area. Abstract names like DirectX, Sound, Graphics, > > > Installers and Printing are a much better idea than dllnames. > > [...] > > > > Sounds good to me too. > > But just for the sake of it, I will mention that we have keywords too. > > > > So we can have broad categories like 'printing' and 'display', and > > dll-specific keywords like 'gdi32' and 'comctl32'. > > > > Or we can do the opposite and have broad keywords for 'printing' and > > 'display', and then dll-specific categories. > > > > Or we could stay with the current scheme because both of the above may > > be abuses of the keyword system. > > > > Up to you. > > > > Yea that works too. I would actually prefer having them as keywords > and keeping components per dll. It's been working great for the > installer keyword, where the components are usually, but not limited > to, msi, setupapi, advpack. We also have custom fields. (Currently Difficulty is our only one.) So we could e.g. have a field where we would put something like dlls/wined3d/foo.c:bar() to say exactly where the problem is located if that is known. Jan

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: Support GCOV for Wine 1.0?

by Dan Kegel

On 10/12/07, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/winedev-guide/x1374 > > This information should be in the Wiki somewhere. Yes, we should remove all web pages from the entire web and put them in a wiki. - Dan

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: Support GCOV for Wine 1.0?

by James Hawkins

On 10/12/07, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > On 10/12/07, Detlef Riekenberg <wine.dev(a)web.de> wrote: > > A while ago (2004), there was some work about wine with gcov, > > with the focus on "Picassa 2": > > ( http://www.cs.hmc.edu/clinic/projects/2004/google/ ) > > > > Final Report: > > ( http://www.cs.hmc.edu/clinic/projects/2004/google/final_report/main.pdf ) > > > > It would be nice, when we can support gcov in current Wine > > "out of the box". > > That would help us a lot, when we write more tests for the > > suggested Wine 1.0 Applications. > > That project had a doc patch accepted: > http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-April/017067.html > This created > http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/winedev-guide/x1374 > Does that suffice? It doesn't give a global report, but that's > probably ok. > - Dan > This information should be in the Wiki somewhere. -- James Hawkins

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: Support GCOV for Wine 1.0?

by Dan Kegel

On 10/12/07, Detlef Riekenberg <wine.dev(a)web.de> wrote: > A while ago (2004), there was some work about wine with gcov, > with the focus on "Picassa 2": > ( http://www.cs.hmc.edu/clinic/projects/2004/google/ ) > > Final Report: > ( http://www.cs.hmc.edu/clinic/projects/2004/google/final_report/main.pdf ) > > It would be nice, when we can support gcov in current Wine > "out of the box". > That would help us a lot, when we write more tests for the > suggested Wine 1.0 Applications. That project had a doc patch accepted: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-April/017067.html This created http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/winedev-guide/x1374 Does that suffice? It doesn't give a global report, but that's probably ok. - Dan

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: 1.0 Bugs - Microsoft Office 2003

by Dan Kegel

On 10/12/07, Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: > I think the only applications which should block Wine releases should be > ones which are freely downloadable and for which automated tests exist > (with cxtest, yawt or something). The rational is that everyone should > be able to run the tests and confirm that the 'must have' applications > do work. But then I might be biased... I tend to agree. Automated tests using stable, freely downloadable apps are the way to go. I've edited http://wiki.winehq.org/WineReleaseCriteria to reflect this. The apps could be full, trial, or viewer apps, from major vendors like Mozilla, OpenOffice.org, Adobe, and Microsoft. - Dan

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: defining and revamping our bugzilla categories

by James Hawkins

On 10/12/07, Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Steven Edwards wrote: > [...] > > > gdi > > > printing > [...] > > Yes I second this motion. The components should be named as simply as > > possible. Users are going to be the ones filing the reports and > > whoever is doing triage is going to have to move it around if its in > > the wrong area. Abstract names like DirectX, Sound, Graphics, > > Installers and Printing are a much better idea than dllnames. > [...] > > Sounds good to me too. > But just for the sake of it, I will mention that we have keywords too. > > So we can have broad categories like 'printing' and 'display', and > dll-specific keywords like 'gdi32' and 'comctl32'. > > Or we can do the opposite and have broad keywords for 'printing' and > 'display', and then dll-specific categories. > > Or we could stay with the current scheme because both of the above may > be abuses of the keyword system. > > Up to you. > Yea that works too. I would actually prefer having them as keywords and keeping components per dll. It's been working great for the installer keyword, where the components are usually, but not limited to, msi, setupapi, advpack. > One more issue to raise: is the reason why we have 'wine-' as the prefix > to avoid conflicts between different products? That is, if we have a > 'printing' category in the 'Wine' product, is it going to interfer with > the 'printing' category of a 'Wine-doc' product? > You'd think bugzilla would be more dynamic. For example, if you choose WineHQ.org as the product, then you only get components available to that product. Unfortunately, I don't think it works that way. -- James Hawkins

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: Translations

by Daniel Nylander

fre 2007-10-12 klockan 14:02 +0200 skrev Marcus Meissner: > > I would really like to translate the graphical tools (such as winecfg) > > but as I can see it, it's not possible at the moment. > > > > Have you thought about implementing some sort of i18n/l10n framework? > > This is done via the Windows method of using the resource files. Thank you, Marcus. The Swedish translation should be ready within a day or two. Regards, Daniel

Oct. 12, 2007

Re: request for kernel32/toolhelp windows testrun

by Detlef Riekenberg

On Do, 2007-10-11 at 08:45 +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote: > int num = 0; > + int pos1 = -1 , pos2 = -1; You mix SPACE and TAB. Thanks (The updated test works in w2k here) -- By by ... Detlef

Oct. 12, 2007