February 2009 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: msi: begin support for finding network last sources in find_published_source

by James Hawkins

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > Ok i am following you but. > > James Hawkins wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, > > . > . > . >> >> No, I think the patch is wrong in that if you remove the original >> media and the stored cabs, the install will fail. > > By that thinking then the whole function find_published_source is a horrible > hack and should be removed as being wrong. It is not the case that these > published sources should be accessible? > Na it's not a hack. Some patches require the old source to be available (older versions of Office patches for example.) But those all work fine, so I can't say whether the patch is correct or not without tests. My main concern is that we're now *hiding* other bugs because of the changed behavior. > Maybe this is not the correct fix for SP1. But is this patch incorrect for > msi also? > > I am looking at the REINSTALL logic and it looks like it may be tricky. > I think you're best bet is to append tests to tests/package.c:test_states() that set REINSTALL and REINSTALLMODE to various values and see what the states are. From there the necessary implementation should be apparent. The most important part of REINSTALL(MODE) is that it allows an already installed non-versioned file to not be reinstalled (in certain cases.) If I remember correctly, we needed this one for SP1. Also, REINSTALL is set to the features that are requested to be reinstalled, and we shouldn't try to reinstall anything else in that situation. -- James Hawkins

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by Marcus Meissner

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:47:16AM -0600, Rosanne DiMesio wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:24:09 -0800 > Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > > > > > Can we add in a line at the top saying > > "Stable version 1.0.1 of Wine can usually be installed > > just like any other Linux application using your > > package manager (e.g. in Ubuntu, do Applications / Add/Remove, > > select Wine, and click Apply Changes). > > > > If that doesn't work, or if you need a newer version of Wine, > > here's how to get it." > > ? > > > The problem with the way you've phrased it is that it's simply not true. Ubuntu users have complained on the forum more than once that there are no 1.0.1 packages in their repository. I've also never seen any 1.0.1 packages for openSUSE in any of the repositories or the Sourceforge archive. > > Take out the "Stable version 1.0.1 of" and it works. I actually build them, in http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/Emulators:/Wine:/STABLE/<distro> but up to adding them I never had a single request for the stable version. I think the regular downloading user might not be interested, and our regular development releases are stable enough. Ciao, Marcus

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: msi: begin support for finding network last sources in find_published_source

by Aric Stewart

Ok i am following you but. James Hawkins wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: >> Hello, . . . > No, I think the patch is wrong in that if you remove the original > media and the stored cabs, the install will fail. By that thinking then the whole function find_published_source is a horrible hack and should be removed as being wrong. It is not the case that these published sources should be accessible? Maybe this is not the correct fix for SP1. But is this patch incorrect for msi also? I am looking at the REINSTALL logic and it looks like it may be tricky. -aric

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by Jeremy White

> No argument there, but the thing you want prominently placed is the > download link, not the thankyou, right? Oh, sorry; I didn't understand. I was trying to be honorable on this point by clearly revealing why that prominent placement was given to us; a truth in advertising sort of thing. I can see that it consumes vertical white space, and I can get over myself. I remove my objection :-/. Cheers, Jeremy

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by Rosanne DiMesio

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:24:09 -0800 Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > > Can we add in a line at the top saying > "Stable version 1.0.1 of Wine can usually be installed > just like any other Linux application using your > package manager (e.g. in Ubuntu, do Applications / Add/Remove, > select Wine, and click Apply Changes). > > If that doesn't work, or if you need a newer version of Wine, > here's how to get it." > ? The problem with the way you've phrased it is that it's simply not true. Ubuntu users have complained on the forum more than once that there are no 1.0.1 packages in their repository. I've also never seen any 1.0.1 packages for openSUSE in any of the repositories or the Sourceforge archive. Take out the "Stable version 1.0.1 of" and it works. -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by Dan Kegel

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)winehq.org> wrote: >>> I think we should also move the text >>> "This endorsement is the primary recognition that CodeWeavers has >>> requested in exchange for hosting the Wine web site." >>> to the bottom of the page, and change it to read >>> "Thanks to CodeWeavers for hosting WineHQ.org". > > To be very honest, that would hurt. > > We get an appreciable amount of traffic from that more prominent > location, and that traffic helps to pay our salaries. I'm not proposing moving the download link, just the endorsement, which currently isn't a link. (We should probably turn the endorsement into a link.) > I feel that it is reasonable for us to ask for that prominent > placement, given our contributions, particularly since we're > quite honest and clear about it. No argument there, but the thing you want prominently placed is the download link, not the thankyou, right?

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by Jeremy White

>> I think we should also move the text >> "This endorsement is the primary recognition that CodeWeavers has >> requested in exchange for hosting the Wine web site." >> to the bottom of the page, and change it to read >> "Thanks to CodeWeavers for hosting WineHQ.org". > > +1 To be very honest, that would hurt. We get an appreciable amount of traffic from that more prominent location, and that traffic helps to pay our salaries. I feel that it is reasonable for us to ask for that prominent placement, given our contributions, particularly since we're quite honest and clear about it. Cheers, Jeremy

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by Austin English

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:37 AM, James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Sent: Feb 20, 2009 10:32 AM >>To: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> >>Cc: "wine-devel(a)winehq.org" <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> >>Subject: Re: Wine download page usability problem >> >>On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: >>> >>> Can we add in a line at the top saying >>> "Stable version 1.0.1 of Wine can usually be installed >>> just like any other Linux application using your >>> package manager (e.g. in Ubuntu, do Applications / Add/Remove, >>> select Wine, and click Apply Changes). >> >>Nitpick, but instead of 'Linux', use 'native'. FreeBSD's ports >>contains wine, as well as NetBSD's. > > Please exclude MacOSX which does not include Wine and I doubt it ever will. MacOSX doesn't have a native/builtin package manager that is used to download and install applications. Fink/etc. come close, but A) they aren't there by default and B) that's why the qualifier 'usually' is there. -- -Austin

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: Wine download page usability problem

by James Mckenzie

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Sent: Feb 20, 2009 10:32 AM >To: Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> >Cc: "wine-devel(a)winehq.org" <wine-devel(a)winehq.org> >Subject: Re: Wine download page usability problem > >On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: >> >> Can we add in a line at the top saying >> "Stable version 1.0.1 of Wine can usually be installed >> just like any other Linux application using your >> package manager (e.g. in Ubuntu, do Applications / Add/Remove, >> select Wine, and click Apply Changes). > >Nitpick, but instead of 'Linux', use 'native'. FreeBSD's ports >contains wine, as well as NetBSD's. Please exclude MacOSX which does not include Wine and I doubt it ever will. > >> I think we should also move the text >> "This endorsement is the primary recognition that CodeWeavers has >> requested in exchange for hosting the Wine web site." >> to the bottom of the page, and change it to read >> "Thanks to CodeWeavers for hosting WineHQ.org". > >+1 > ++1 James McKenzie

Feb. 20, 2009

Re: msi: begin support for finding network last sources in find_published_source

by James Hawkins

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > Hello, > > No i never saw the e-mail that you send to Jeremy. > > I will admit that i did not dig really deep for this patch as it appeared > to me that the fix was obvious (there was even a fixme in the code saying we > needed to do what the installer was asking for) > Unfortunately the error is misleading. A good mentality to take is that if you see the error about 'unable to extract ABC.cab' then we're trying to install a file that shouldn't be installed (or reinstalled.) > There are about 4 CAB files that the service pack asks for to install (and > only installs a few files out of each) that are accessed by this method. > Each one does not exist on the original media at all and only seems > accessable via the LastSource location. > I don't see how that's possible. If they're in LastSource, that means we used them before and came from the original media. I'm confused about that though, because the only cabs that should be accessed by the SP1 installer are stored in the package itself. Any other file that tries to be installed is improperly being reinstalled. > I am curious what tests you did to prove that you did not need the original > media or even the copied cab files? Did you do a test on windows where you > deleted them all and the upgrade worked? > Yes that is one way to test it. The fullfile SP1 does not, and should not, rely on the original media and stored cabs. If our msi is asking for those old cabs, it means we're reinstalling a file that shouldn't be reinstalled (which is a bug.) > I will investigate some more, but i do not feel that this patch is > incorrect, even if it should not be needed. Am I right there? > No, I think the patch is wrong in that if you remove the original media and the stored cabs, the install will fail. -- James Hawkins

Feb. 20, 2009