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

Re: Packaging - Bundling Mono and Gecko

by Ove Kaaven

Scott Ritchie skrev: > If I wanted a Wine package to include mono and gecko, what would the > best way to do this be? > > I know we support having gecko installed somewhere on the filesystem so > it doesn't have to be downloaded (where?), but would I need to make any > further changes other than adding it to the package at the appropriate path? I've been looking into it too. Seems to me that no, if you put it in /usr/share/wine/gecko, you don't need to change anything. However, I cannot yet build such a package because the mingw cross compiler currently in debian seems to barf when trying to compile gecko. Also, I'm unsure what configure options were used. (And no, I don't think Debian is going to accept precompiled packages...) > How about mono? Would it be possible to have mono installed at > wineprefixcreate time? As far as I can tell, not without changes.

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: appdb license choices unclear

by Dan Kegel

On Dec 31, 2007 6:58 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes <alex(a)thehandofagony.com> wrote: > > So it might be good to split freeware into two: > > Free to use, but not to share > > Free to use and to share > > Could we use the 'downloadable apps' page for that? It shows the apps for > which there are currently listed free downloads, optionally filtered by > licence. The 'downloadable apps' page filters based on the exact license field I'm talking about, so it won't help here, but it would benefit from the change I'm proposing. - Dan -- Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: comdlg32: 2/2 PageSetupDlgW: Draw paper preview

by Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes

On Monday 31 December 2007 07:46:22 Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > "Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes" <alex(a)thehandofagony.com> wrote: > > comdlg32: 2/2 PageSetupDlgW: Draw paper preview > > What's the reason of moving PRINTDLG_PS_ChangePrinterW and changing > its indentation? I added a few new functions which it depends on. The change of indentation was accidental. Alexander N. Sørnes

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: comdlg32: 1/2 PageSetupDlg: Convert paint procs to Unicode

by Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes

On Monday 31 December 2007 07:39:28 Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > "Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes" <alex(a)thehandofagony.com> wrote: > > comdlg32: 1/2 PageSetupDlg: Convert paint procs to Unicod > > What's the purpose of this patch? It improves nothing IMO except of > making the code less readable, making it not thread safe, calling > CallWindowProcW where it shouldn't. I made these changes so that the PageSetupDlgA/W could share the paper preview code, which the W variant currently doesn't have (preview added in patch 2/2). I would be grateful if you could suggest ways to improve the code, but if it's completely hopeless I'll accept that. :) Alexander N. Sørnes

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: appdb license choices unclear

by Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes

On Monday 31 December 2007 15:36:59 Dan Kegel wrote: > On Dec 30, 2007 8:55 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> wrote: > > According to Wikipedia: "The *only* criterion for being > > classified as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for > > use for an unlimited time at no cost" [1]. > > [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware > > That page also mentions that some people disagree with that, > and say that software which cannot be shared with others > is not freeware. > > The difference is interesting to me because nonredistributable > freeware can be pulled from the internet at any time > by its author, whereas redistributable freeware will always > be available via mirrors. Thus the Wine community can > count on redistributable freeware, but not in general on > nonredistributable. > > This matters sometimes, e.g. when considering which apps to > put in our "must run in 1.0" test suite. > Could we use the 'downloadable apps' page for that? It shows the apps for which there are currently listed free downloads, optionally filtered by licence. > So it might be good to split freeware into two: > Free to use, but not to share > Free to use and to share > - Dan

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: appdb license choices unclear

by Dan Kegel

On Dec 30, 2007 8:55 PM, L. Rahyen <research(a)science.su> wrote: > According to Wikipedia: "The *only* criterion for being classified > as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for use for an > unlimited time at no cost" [1]. > [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeware That page also mentions that some people disagree with that, and say that software which cannot be shared with others is not freeware. The difference is interesting to me because nonredistributable freeware can be pulled from the internet at any time by its author, whereas redistributable freeware will always be available via mirrors. Thus the Wine community can count on redistributable freeware, but not in general on nonredistributable. This matters sometimes, e.g. when considering which apps to put in our "must run in 1.0" test suite. So it might be good to split freeware into two: Free to use, but not to share Free to use and to share - Dan

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: appdb license choices unclear

by Maarten Lankhorst

L. Rahyen schreef: > On Sunday December 30 2007 01:04, Dan Kegel wrote: > >> "Freeware" might be the closest of the bunch, but it implies GPL or >> at least the ability to redistribute binaries >> (i.e. the other meaning of the word Free). >> > > Even in Linux world "freeware" doesn't imply neither GPL nor ability to > redistribute binaries; it (often but not always) imply that the > program have source code available, you can modify and redistribute it (along > with the binaries if you wish). > However, in Windows world word "freeware" always imply that you can download > and use the software free of charge and that's all. A lot of additional > restrictions may be made by author(s) of the software. > According to Wikipedia: "The *only* criterion for being classified > as "freeware" is that the software must be made available for use for an > unlimited time at no cost" [1] In general, freeware means no source available, open source means source available and modifiable. I would just go for freeware and 'open source' as options. Maarten

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: crypt32: Remove unneeded casts

by Andrew Talbot

Please do not commit this patch. Thanks, -- Andy.

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: comctl32: Remove unneeded casts (2 of 3)

by Andrew Talbot

Please do not commit this patch. Thanks, -- Andy.

Dec. 31, 2007

Re: comctl32: Remove unneeded casts (1 of 3)

by Andrew Talbot

Please do not commit this patch. It relies on UINT (= unsigned int) and DWORD (= unsigned long int) both being 32 bits wide. Thanks, -- Andy.

Dec. 31, 2007