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

Re: gdiplus: add a drawing test for GdipFillRectangleI

by Vincent Povirk

> P.S. there's no place for todo_wine in you expect_pixel. You can write todo_wine expect_pixel(...);

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: gdiplus: add a drawing test for GdipFillRectangleI

by Nikolay Sivov

Vincent Povirk wrote: >> As for me I'm not against it if it'll work stably, but will this really >> help? It's much easier to check this visually, comparing with native output. >> > I think it will help. It should be stable as long as we are careful > about how strict the tests are. It's probably not as appropriate to be > this strict most of the time. > > In this particular test, I think we can expect pixel-accuracy. By > default there is no antialiasing, and the shape is a rectangle. > Similarly, if we draw a raster image at integer coordinates, we should > get a consistent result. > In this particular test definitely yes. >> Maybe it makes sense to add an antialiasing drawing tests to find out a >> closer algorithm for line drawing with different SmoothingModes... >> > I'm still stuck on the question of how we can implement antialiasing > while relying so heavily on gdi32. > Here I mean GdipDrawLine, for example, for Graphics with SmoothingMode set. We can use LineTo or antialiasing computing each pixel, it isn't a point. --- P.S. there's no place for todo_wine in you expect_pixel.

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: gdiplus: add a drawing test for GdipFillRectangleI

by Vincent Povirk

> As for me I'm not against it if it'll work stably, but will this really > help? It's much easier to check this visually, comparing with native output. I think it will help. It should be stable as long as we are careful about how strict the tests are. It's probably not as appropriate to be this strict most of the time. In this particular test, I think we can expect pixel-accuracy. By default there is no antialiasing, and the shape is a rectangle. Similarly, if we draw a raster image at integer coordinates, we should get a consistent result. Checking things visually is not easy for me. It requires me to write a test program or find an existing program that uses a particular call in the way I want, and I don't trust myself to do the test without mistakes. It does not fill me with confidence that anything in our current implementation is correct. When I'm looking at a bug that could be caused by any of a number of functions (because I'm not sure of the correct behavior), tests help. > These pixel-by-pixel tests should use current bpp depth for 'relaxation' > when we start draw gradients for example...That's will add another > complexity. I'm not sure what you mean. The current bpp depth shouldn't be an issue if I've done this right. It should do 32-bit tests regardless of the display. > Maybe it makes sense to add an antialiasing drawing tests to find out a > closer algorithm for line drawing with different SmoothingModes... I'm still stuck on the question of how we can implement antialiasing while relying so heavily on gdi32. Vincent Povirk

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: gdiplus: add a drawing test for GdipFillRectangleI

by Nikolay Sivov

Vincent Povirk wrote: > This is a very simple drawing test that I've created to establish a precedent for drawing tests in gdiplus. > > Gdiplus currently has no tests that draw things and then check what was drawn. I've added some functions that should make this easy. It's important to get this right the first time so any feedback will be most appreciated. > As for me I'm not against it if it'll work stably, but will this really help? It's much easier to check this visually, comparing with native output. These pixel-by-pixel tests should use current bpp depth for 'relaxation' when we start draw gradients for example...That's will add another complexity. Maybe it makes sense to add an antialiasing drawing tests to find out a closer algorithm for line drawing with different SmoothingModes...

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: imagicos

by James Mckenzie

Jeremy White <jwhite(a)winehq.org> wrote: > >EA Durbin wrote: >> I just saw this linux distribution on distrowatch. They claim to be able >> to run all microsoft products. Interesting. > >Just for the record, these folks are customers of ours. > Thank you for the clarification of your relationship with this company. > >It is my belief that their distribution of CrossOver complies with all >of the terms of the LGPL; we try to make sure of that for our customers. > I even believe that money they make as a result of their windows >compatibility will, albeit fairly indirectly, support Wine development. > This is very true. Hopefully, the legal folks have taken a look at how they are utilizing your product. I, for one, don't like to see one company's efforts usurped by another. > >Obviously, I like it when folks can celebrate the contributions of >everyone to Wine, and to all the FOSS products that go into something >like a Linux distribution. But Free Software means that folks are also >free to market as they see fit :-/. > I have warned folks against 'Free' software due to support concerns. I use Crossover because CodeWeavers is an ongoing concern. I advise folks to work with Wine, with the cavet that it is FOSS and that support is only available through the Wine Forums or Wine Mailing Lists. I also warn them that a problem they encounter may or may not be corrected. The same is true of most commercial software, but there is available telephone support (if you pay for it.) Again, I like where Wine is moving and the advances in just the last year. Also, I do support those companies that attempt to commercialize products, like RedHat and CodeWeavers. Please continue to do the great things that will move Wine forward. James McKenzie

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: ntdll: add a warning about running wine as root (resend)

by Alexandre Julliard

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Alexandre Julliard > <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: >> No, a warning that will get drowned in a bunch of other fixmes is not >> useful. > > We could make it a popup warning, again, only on first run. No, warning message boxes are just as useless, users have been conditioned by MS to click through without reading. If you really want to prevent users from running as root you have to refuse to create the prefix and abort, and then make them jump through hoops to create it manually, by running wineboot explicitly or something like that. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: Fixing AppDB once and for all

by Rosanne DiMesio

> > > > Could we also have some discussion about improving the interface for admins/maintainers? I've found that the limitations of the current interface make it very difficult to do basic admin tasks. > > > > -- > > Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net> > > > > Rosanne, > > I think thats a good idea. Could you please go to the wiki and fill > in some details in the (new) Agenda for the next meeting some more > details about whats wrong / some framework for ideas on how to improve > it? > > http://wiki.winehq.org/AppDBUpgrades#head-72164e637b3bc430e5ce6810966b79d5f… > > Cheers, > -Zach I've added my list of "AppDB admin pet peeves" to the agenda for 2/13. Other admins, please take a look and add anything important I may have overlooked. http://wiki.winehq.org/AppDBUpgrades?action=show#head-7a870d1b0154cf73cb155… -- Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: ntdll: add a warning about running wine as root (resend)

by Austin English

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> That's not the (main) problem. The main problem is people installing >> stuff as root when they have no reason to do so. >> >> Alexandre, how would you feel about a one time warning, e.g., by >> setting a registry key, a la wineboot when run on a new/updated >> prefix. > > No, a warning that will get drowned in a bunch of other fixmes is not > useful. We could make it a popup warning, again, only on first run. > What we should really do is properly support installing as root, > i.e. having stuff go into a global prefix and being available to all > users. IMHO, that's a separate issue, but something that we should do. -- -Austin

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: ntdll: add a warning about running wine as root (resend)

by Alexandre Julliard

Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> writes: > That's not the (main) problem. The main problem is people installing > stuff as root when they have no reason to do so. > > Alexandre, how would you feel about a one time warning, e.g., by > setting a registry key, a la wineboot when run on a new/updated > prefix. No, a warning that will get drowned in a bunch of other fixmes is not useful. What we should really do is properly support installing as root, i.e. having stuff go into a global prefix and being available to all users. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 10, 2009

Re: imagicos

by Jeremy White

EA Durbin wrote: > I just saw this linux distribution on distrowatch. They claim to be able > to run all microsoft products. Interesting. Just for the record, these folks are customers of ours. It is my belief that their distribution of CrossOver complies with all of the terms of the LGPL; we try to make sure of that for our customers. I even believe that money they make as a result of their windows compatibility will, albeit fairly indirectly, support Wine development. Obviously, I like it when folks can celebrate the contributions of everyone to Wine, and to all the FOSS products that go into something like a Linux distribution. But Free Software means that folks are also free to market as they see fit :-/. Cheers, Jeremy

Feb. 10, 2009