January 2008 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [5/6] ddraw: fix palette copying when destination palette is NULL
by Stefan Dösinger Jan. 1, 2008

Jan. 1, 2008

Am Montag, 31. Dezember 2007 03:04:02 schrieb Alexander Dorofeyev: > I think there's a bug here. If pal == NULL that implies (because of > preceding code) that wine_pal == NULL. So it's setting a NULL wined3d > palette to the destination wined3d surface, yet increases reference counter > on source palette. I guess it should pass source wined3d palette here, to > make any sense. --- > dlls/ddraw/texture.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) I am not sure about this, but honestly I don't really know much about IDirect3DTexture2::Load is supposed to work. When I ported ddraw.dll to use wined3d I only did routine adjustments to the code to cope with the wined3d objects. I think Lionel Ulmer wrote the original code, maybe he can comment on it? I think we really need a few unit tests for this method. From the docs, it seems that this method is related to IDirect3DDevice9::LoadTexture, maybe we can map it to WineD3D's loadtexture.

3 10

Re: Commit stats
by Hans Leidekker Jan. 1, 2008

Jan. 1, 2008

On Tuesday 01 January 2008 21:25:02 Clarence Risher wrote: > Because I like to nitpick, does your 2007 count include any commits to > your local tree that arent actually submitted/accepted? > > On Jan 1, 2008 7:37 AM, Hans Leidekker <hans(a)it.vu.nl> wrote: > > > > $ for y in {2002..2007}; do \ > > n=$( git log | grep ^Date: | grep $y | wc -l ); \ > > echo "Number of commits in $y: $n"; \ > > done > > Number of commits in 2002: 3094 > > Number of commits in 2003: 3283 > > Number of commits in 2004: 3851 > > Number of commits in 2005: 6006 > > Number of commits in 2006: 8431 > > Number of commits in 2007: 9526 Oops, yes there were some local commits in that count, the correct upstream count for 2007 is 9513. -Hans

1 0

New bugzilla components (round 3)
by Vitaliy Margolen Jan. 1, 2008

Jan. 1, 2008

Ok we talked and talked and talked and where did it all go? Where are the agreed upon changes? If we can't agree on everything, then lets do parts that everyone is ok with. Then decide on more changes. So far this what everyone was happy with: wine-misc -> unknown (default selection) test -> test (change description to "Conformance tests") wine-advapi32 -> advapi32 wine-atl -> atl wine-comctl32 -> comctl32 wine-console -> console wine-crypt32 -> crypt32 wine-dbghelp -> dbghelp wine-debug -> winedbg wine-directx* -> directx* wine-documentation -> documentation wine-dos -> dos wine-gdi-(printing) -> gdi32 wine-gdiplus -> gdiplus wine-help -> hhctrl - Help viewer implementation wine-kernel -> kernel32 wine-loader ->loader wine-msi -> msi wine-msvcrt -> msvcrt wine-msxml -> msxml3 wine-ole -> ole wine-opengl -> opengl wine-quartz -> quartz wine-richedit -> richedit wine-setupapi -> setupapi wine-shdocvw -> shdocvw wine-shell32 -> shell32 wine-urlmon -> urlmon wine-user -> user32 wine-usp10.dll -> usp10 wine-winelib -> winelib wine-x11driver -> x11driver Add new components: -> wininet - Internet connectivity and Layer-7 protocols -> wintrust - Cryptography and trust verifications -> advpack - INF file based installation engine -> imagehlp - PE binary file manipulations, signed file handling -> shlwapi - Various shell helper functions -> vdm - Wine 16-bit compatibility layer -> comdlg32 - Common dialogs such as open/save/print/font Remove: Wine-Rebar ------------------------------ This is up for discussion: New keywords: ports - OS specific issues and portability hardware - Issues communicating with HW such as serial/parallel/cdrom/usb integration - Bugs related to Wine integration into OS (menu, MIME-types, look) ipc - Communication between Wine processes or app tasks/processes/threads New components: -> fonts - Wine fonts -> ntdll - NT-native API implementation -> wineserver - The Wine "kernel" -> build-env - Configure, Makefile and all related scripts Need to reclassify bugs before removing: wine-binary -> wine-ipc -> wine-gui -> wine-patches -> wine-ports -> wine-multimedia -> wine-net -> wine-resources -> Need ideas wine-dotnet -> (should probably replace with mscoree and add "dotnet" keyword) wine-files -> (keyword "filesystem"? Not many bugs but pretty important) Vitaliy.

4 3

bugs audit volunteers required
by Vijay Kiran Kamuju Jan. 1, 2008

Jan. 1, 2008

On Dec 31, 2007 6:10 PM, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > Vijay Kiran Kamuju schreef: > > > just like last year we did an audit of all the bugs in bugzilla. > > I think this year also we should do the same, the bugs are growing > > large and older bugs are being neglected. > > just wanted to say that we need to check all the old open bugs, and > > test them/ask the user for status. > > Close the bug as Abandoned if there is no response. also test the > > application yourself on latest git. > > this is the work to be done. and we need volunteers for this work. > > > > need volunteers to clear up the mess(old abandoned bugs) in bugzilla > The situation with bugzilla is quite bad. The rate at which bugs are > opened is a LOT higher then the rate of bugs that can be fixed. This > adds a lot of bugs that won't ever be fixed. > > The situation also isn't helped by the fact that a lot of the newly > generated bug reports are not of good enough quality. Example: "My > obscure app doesn't do xxx", without for example mentioning what the app > is, or a link to a demo, or insufficient information to really reproduce > the bug. I can see the quality of bugs is deteriorating at a fast rate. since it crossed 10K mark. I think we should some things compulsory in the bug reports they are submitting. And we should add a new textbox to bugzilla when creating a new bug. It should be steps to replicate/reproduce the bug. It should be like step1, step 2, .... > > The situation isn't improved by the fact that bugs are reopened by those > persons after minimal additions. Perhaps we should have a bug > moderation? Only allow bugs that follow the criterion, then have a way > for bugzilla admins to accept bug reports and then a new bug report > entry is created in bugzilla. Bugzilla moderation is an very daunting task. and on top of it verifying the bugs will add to it. Forwarding abandoned patches in bugzila, asking for reasons, put them in bugzilla. And it needs at least 1-2 persons to work on them full time ;) As its an open source project we cant impose have a full time moderators May be we need to think of an alternate solution. Adding new fields to the bugzilla, that I suggested an be another alternative ;) lets think of more alterntives -- VJ > > -Maarten >

4 3

Re: comdlg32: 2/2 PageSetupDlgW: Draw paper preview
by Dmitry Timoshkov Jan. 1, 2008

Jan. 1, 2008

"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? -- Dmitry.

2 2

appdb license choices unclear
by Dan Kegel Jan. 1, 2008

Jan. 1, 2008

Has anybody else been confused by this? When submitting an app to the appdb, I'm often flummoxed by what to put in the license field. I'm usually looking for something that means "Closed source, free to download, but not redistributable" (like e.g. http://labs.adobe.com/misc/terms_of_use.html ) but the only choices are: Retail, Open Source, Freeware, Demo, Shareware. "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). Is there a way to make this clearer? Maybe "nonredistributable freeware"? - Dan

6 9