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

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by Ben Klein

2009/2/13 Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr>: > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote: > >> What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it >> might make sense to review our web site and make sure >> its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen >> (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo >> says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars >> chew 25 pixels each). > > For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the > 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which > has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 > resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is > shipping anymore). > I think it's still valuable as an accessibility thing. Remember, not everyone has excellent eyesight!

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Problem with compiling ole32 crosstest

by Vitaly Perov

On Friday 13 February 2009 14:18:17 Huw Davies wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:01:35PM +0300, Vitaly Perov wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Does anybody have a problem compilling the crosstest of ole32? > > Or maybe it's only my fault? > > > > I have: > > usrmarshal.cross.o: In function `func_usrmarshal': > > /srv/vitperov/Projects/wine-dev/dlls/ole32/tests/usrmarshal.c:445: > > undefined reference to `_WdtpInterfacePointer_UserSize(a)20' > > /srv/vitperov/Projects/wine-dev/dlls/ole32/tests/usrmarshal.c:448: > > undefined reference to `_WdtpInterfacePointer_UserMarshal(a)20' > > ... > > Does this help? > > cd dlls/ole32 > make libole32.a Yes, thank you!!! -- Best wishes, Vitaly Perov Russia, Saint-Petersburg. www.etersoft.ru

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Problem with compiling ole32 crosstest

by Huw Davies

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 02:01:35PM +0300, Vitaly Perov wrote: > Hi! > > Does anybody have a problem compilling the crosstest of ole32? > Or maybe it's only my fault? > > I have: > usrmarshal.cross.o: In function `func_usrmarshal': > /srv/vitperov/Projects/wine-dev/dlls/ole32/tests/usrmarshal.c:445: undefined > reference to `_WdtpInterfacePointer_UserSize(a)20' > /srv/vitperov/Projects/wine-dev/dlls/ole32/tests/usrmarshal.c:448: undefined > reference to `_WdtpInterfacePointer_UserMarshal(a)20' > ... Does this help? cd dlls/ole32 make libole32.a -- huw(a)codeweavers.com

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Proposed goal for website: happily usable at 800x600?

by Francois Gouget

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Dan Kegel wrote: > What with netbooks with small screens abounding, it > might make sense to review our web site and make sure > its most important parts are usable in an 800x600 screen > (easy to simulate, just resize your browser until xwininfo > says it's 800x550, those gnome top and bottom bars > chew 25 pixels each). For what it's worth, most netbooks have a 1024x600 resolution (all the 9" and 10" ones as far as I know, with the exception of the HP one which has a highjer resolution). The old 7" models might have had an 800x600 resolution but I think these can be ignored now (no 7" netbook is shipping anymore). -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ Linux, WinNT, MS-DOS - also known as the Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Feb. 13, 2009

Problem with compiling ole32 crosstest

by Vitaly Perov

Hi! Does anybody have a problem compilling the crosstest of ole32? Or maybe it's only my fault? I have: usrmarshal.cross.o: In function `func_usrmarshal': /srv/vitperov/Projects/wine-dev/dlls/ole32/tests/usrmarshal.c:445: undefined reference to `_WdtpInterfacePointer_UserSize(a)20' /srv/vitperov/Projects/wine-dev/dlls/ole32/tests/usrmarshal.c:448: undefined reference to `_WdtpInterfacePointer_UserMarshal(a)20' ... -- Best wishes, Vitaly Perov Russia, Saint-Petersburg. www.etersoft.ru

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: wintrust(2/3): Remove a couple tests that fail on a variety of systems (try 2)

by Paul Vriens

Juan Lang wrote: >>> I think that these failures are also because of "not enough rights" >>> (people running winetest as a normal user). So just removing them is >>> probably not the best approach? >>> >> Maybe it's not that there are not enough rights. The common denominator that >> I see is that all reports/boxes that produce these failures seems to be >> coming from one person (Ge). Maybe worthwhile checking with him before just >> removing the tests? > > Perhaps. The last error didn't change in any of these tests, so I'm > discinclined to believe it's a permissions issue. The only change was > that on some systems the return value is FALSE, whereas on others it's > TRUE. I don't think a test that says ok(ret == TRUE || ret == FALSE) > is worth much, so I removed it. > > In general, I treat this Windows boxes as oracles: if they behave a > certain way, then by definition that's allowed behavior. The only > exception is when the behavior differs and is clearly broken on older > machines. Since in this case, the failures are on relatively new > machines as well, the tests appear to be flawed. > > Of course, if it's a misconfiguration, I'll reconsider. > --Juan > Ge confirmed that it's a non-administrator issue on all those boxes. I'll do some testing in the nearby future and will probably reintroduce those tests but with proper guarding for non-administrators. -- Cheers, Paul.

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: Start DDE interface from Explorer Process. Add DDE stubs.

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Jeremiah Flerchinger" <jeremiah.flerchinger(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Explorer.exe now calls ShellDdeInit. Progman stubs will now be started/used in Shell32. > Amazingly any apps with a Progman DDE interface will also be called. Shell32 can handle > all major functionality, but a running progman.exe (for example) will be able to > synchronize internal values with changes made by Shell32. This patch just adds a lot of confusion and mess. As I suggested you should start with a simple test app and see how it really supposed to work. -- Dmitry.

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: [5/5] fusion: Implement IAssemblyCache::QueryAssemblyInfo.

by James Hawkins

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Hans Leidekker <hans(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > On Friday 13 February 2009 09:31:54 James Hawkins wrote: > >> It would be a lot easier if you just took over my patches that >> implement this properly: > > Hmm, I missed those. I'll integrate them with mine. > Thanks! -- James Hawkins

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: [5/5] fusion: Implement IAssemblyCache::QueryAssemblyInfo.

by Hans Leidekker

On Friday 13 February 2009 09:31:54 James Hawkins wrote: > It would be a lot easier if you just took over my patches that > implement this properly: Hmm, I missed those. I'll integrate them with mine. -Hans

Feb. 13, 2009

Re: [3/5] fusion: Assembly version numbers are WORDs.

by Hans Leidekker

On Friday 13 February 2009 09:26:03 James Hawkins wrote: > This definitely needs a test. Patch [5/5] has a test that depends on this. -Hans

Feb. 13, 2009