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

Re: Closing bugs in bugzilla

by Tony Lambregts

Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > James Hawkins wrote: >> On 4/28/07, Ben Hodgetts <ben(a)atomnet.co.uk> wrote: >>> Vitaliy Margolen wrote: >>>> Can anyone explain why do we need to change severity when closing bugs? >>>> This makes severity totally useless. We might as well reset all >>> severity >>>> to normal and remove it from the bugzilla. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> tony.lambregts at gmail.com changed: >>>>> >>>>> What |Removed |Added >>>>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>>> Severity|major |normal >>>>> Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED >>>>> >>> It doesn't change it itself, the closer does it. If I close a bug then I >>> also change the severity but only if it was wrong initially (so people >>> can look back a closed bugs and still have them with what severity they >>> really should be). >>> >> I'm pretty sure that's not what Vitaliy meant. He's questioning why >> the person who closes the bug also changes the severity. >> > Correct that is exactly what I am asking. It seems that every time some > one goes into a "frenzy" of touching big number of bugs at the same > time, they are not available on the IRC, don't respond to e-mails. Nor > did they discussed the matter on the wine-devel or any other > communication channels. > > My question is why change severity of the bug _after_ it was resolved? > > Can we make a policy that whenever any one wants to do a wholesale > change on Bugzilla discuss the matter with other people involved? So at > least they will know what's going on and why. > > Vitaliy > > > Well if the severity is not right in the first place It should be changed. -- Tony Lambregts

April 29, 2007

Yet more broken Ubuntu packages

by Vitaliy Margolen

I'm getting reports that even wine-0.9.36 packages still compiled without xrandr support. Can we get that fixed ASAP? Thanks. Vitaliy

April 29, 2007

Re: msi: Add full JScript/VBScript support. [11/11,try8]

by Misha Koshelev

On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 23:58 +0200, Detlef Riekenberg wrote: > On Fr, 2007-04-27 at 15:46 -0500, Misha Koshelev wrote: > > --- a/dlls/msi/Makefile.in > > +++ b/dlls/msi/Makefile.in > > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ C_SRCS = \ > > record.c \ > > registry.c \ > > regsvr.c \ > > + script.c \ > > > The File is not in the Patch > > Whoops that is what happens when you use git-apply without the --index parameter. I submitted the patches with this change as well as the string length change James recommended. Misha

April 29, 2007

Re: msi: Add base class for OLE automation objects. [2/11,try8]

by Misha Koshelev

On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 13:32 -0500, James Hawkins wrote: > On 4/27/07, Misha Koshelev <mk144210(a)bcm.edu> wrote: > > Implements basic OLE automation class (i.e., Dispatch plus) > > functionality that is then used for all separate class implementations. > > > > Changelog: > > > > * msi: Add base class for OLE automation objects. > > > > +/* FIXME: I don't know how big this should be */ > +#define MAX_MSI_STRING 1000 > > msi strings don't have size a limit. > Fixed this in new patches. Thanks for the comment. Misha

April 29, 2007

Bug 7682: NtQueryDirectoryFile fails when querying certain symbolic links

by Vitaliy Margolen

Cudos to Lei and everyone else who found the real problem. It appears that Wine's implementation of the NtQueryDirectoryFile and all other functions that ending up calling it have a major problem. They will fail if called on symlinks into directories outside $WINEPREFIX which contain $WINEPREFIX itself (aka loop scenarios). Ex: c:\windows\profiles\vitaliy\Desktop -> $HOME/Desktop - works c:\windows\profiles\vitaliy\My Documents -> $HOME - does not The reason of this is clear - we have to stop any "loops" that are not common on windows (but possible with reparse points). There are lots of "smart" programs that will scan all of available drives and of course they will lock up in the never ending cycle if loops are allowed. However, as I recall this configuration was a result of the long discussion about desktop integration. And use of symlinks was the best solution. It appears it is not a solution. Quite an opposite - it just plain doesn't work. So should we go back to the drawing board and and rethink our approach to the desktop integration? Also what can we do, if user configures such a loops him/her self? Vitaliy Margolen

April 28, 2007

Re: msi: Add full JScript/VBScript support. [11/11,try8]

by Detlef Riekenberg

On Fr, 2007-04-27 at 15:46 -0500, Misha Koshelev wrote: > --- a/dlls/msi/Makefile.in > +++ b/dlls/msi/Makefile.in > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ C_SRCS = \ > record.c \ > registry.c \ > regsvr.c \ > + script.c \ The File is not in the Patch -- By by ... Detlef

April 28, 2007

Re: Closing bugs in bugzilla

by Vitaliy Margolen

James Hawkins wrote: > On 4/28/07, Ben Hodgetts <ben(a)atomnet.co.uk> wrote: >> Vitaliy Margolen wrote: >> > Can anyone explain why do we need to change severity when closing bugs? >> > This makes severity totally useless. We might as well reset all >> severity >> > to normal and remove it from the bugzilla. >> > >> > >> > >> >> tony.lambregts at gmail.com changed: >> >> >> >> What |Removed |Added >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Severity|major |normal >> >> Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED >> >> >> It doesn't change it itself, the closer does it. If I close a bug then I >> also change the severity but only if it was wrong initially (so people >> can look back a closed bugs and still have them with what severity they >> really should be). >> > > I'm pretty sure that's not what Vitaliy meant. He's questioning why > the person who closes the bug also changes the severity. > Correct that is exactly what I am asking. It seems that every time some one goes into a "frenzy" of touching big number of bugs at the same time, they are not available on the IRC, don't respond to e-mails. Nor did they discussed the matter on the wine-devel or any other communication channels. My question is why change severity of the bug _after_ it was resolved? Can we make a policy that whenever any one wants to do a wholesale change on Bugzilla discuss the matter with other people involved? So at least they will know what's going on and why. Vitaliy

April 28, 2007

Re: Closing bugs in bugzilla

by James Hawkins

On 4/28/07, Ben Hodgetts <ben(a)atomnet.co.uk> wrote: > Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > > Can anyone explain why do we need to change severity when closing bugs? > > This makes severity totally useless. We might as well reset all severity > > to normal and remove it from the bugzilla. > > > > > > > >> tony.lambregts at gmail.com changed: > >> > >> What |Removed |Added > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Severity|major |normal > >> Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED > >> > > > > > > > > > It doesn't change it itself, the closer does it. If I close a bug then I > also change the severity but only if it was wrong initially (so people > can look back a closed bugs and still have them with what severity they > really should be). > I'm pretty sure that's not what Vitaliy meant. He's questioning why the person who closes the bug also changes the severity. -- James Hawkins

April 28, 2007

Re: Closing bugs in bugzilla

by Ben Hodgetts

Vitaliy Margolen wrote: > Can anyone explain why do we need to change severity when closing bugs? > This makes severity totally useless. We might as well reset all severity > to normal and remove it from the bugzilla. > > > >> tony.lambregts at gmail.com changed: >> >> What |Removed |Added >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Severity|major |normal >> Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED >> > > > > It doesn't change it itself, the closer does it. If I close a bug then I also change the severity but only if it was wrong initially (so people can look back a closed bugs and still have them with what severity they really should be). Ex.

April 28, 2007

Closing bugs in bugzilla

by Vitaliy Margolen

Can anyone explain why do we need to change severity when closing bugs? This makes severity totally useless. We might as well reset all severity to normal and remove it from the bugzilla. > tony.lambregts at gmail.com changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Severity|major |normal > Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED

April 28, 2007