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

Re: LookupIconIdFromDirectory16() is unused

by Detlef Riekenberg

On Sa, 2009-02-07 at 15:29 +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: > What is strange is thar user.exe.spec exports a > LookupIconIdFromDirectoryEx() function. So shouldn't it export a > LookupIconIdFromDirectory() function too? LookupIconIdFromDirectoryEx (ordinal 364) is exported by name in XP. In win3.11, ordinal 364 is not listed as exported function. LookupIconIdFromDirectory is not exported by name in win3.11 or XP > Unfortunately I have no information about what 16bit dlls are supposed > to export... I'm using "winedump dump -j export <filename>". For some NE files, the exported functions are only visible with: "winedump dump -f <filename>" -- By by ... Detlef

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: LookupIconIdFromDirectory16() is unused

by Alexandre Julliard

Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> writes: > dlls/user32/cursoricon.c defines a LookupIconIdFromDirectory16() > function which is not used anywhere. > > What is strange is thar user.exe.spec exports a > LookupIconIdFromDirectoryEx() function. So shouldn't it export a > LookupIconIdFromDirectory() function too? In which case I suspect that > LookupIconIdFromDirectory16() would be its implementation... > > Unfortunately I have no information about what 16bit dlls are supposed > to export... It's apparently not exported from 16-bit user.exe, so it can be removed. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: Fixing AppDB once and for all

by Zachary Goldberg

2009/2/7 Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio(a)earthlink.net>: > > 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

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: Fixing AppDB once and for all

by Chris Morgan

> > Theres enough information from the discussion to begin moving forward > with coding. Andrew Riedi and I thus far are the volunteers to begin > digging in. If anybody else is interested in getting their hands > dirty please do respond to this, and we'll work out how to get it > done. I imagine I'll setup and email a public .git (that isn't live > to winehq) for development. Stay tuned for that. > I can offer assistance with the general appdb design, db questions etc. I'm glad to see that someone is going to pick this stuff up, the appdb could be much better than it is and its a great tool for wine users. Chris

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: rpcrt4: Check for null endpoint in RpcServerUseProtseqEpExW

by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

see implementation in dual BSD-licensed _and_ LGPL-licensed freedce reference implementation, on which MSRPC was originally blatantly copied (thanks to the BSD license on the 1.0 reference implementation). e.g. online annotated copy here: http://www.sfr-fresh.com/linux/misc/freedce-1.1.0.7.tar.gz:a/freedce-1.1.0.… line 2470. anyone who is doing wine dce/rpc development _really_ needs to be looking at the reference implementation, side-by-side, line-for-line, in virtually every aspect except for exception handling, threading, binary-interoperability with the typelibraries and a few other areas. l.

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: imagicos

by Ben Klein

2009/2/8 Tom Wickline <twickline(a)gmail.com>: > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 2009/2/8 Tom Wickline <twickline(a)gmail.com>: >> > And your getting the OS and support with the OS. >> Wrong. Read the license. They offer absolutely no support for the OS. >> You're buying the binaries and that's it. (This could be a violation >> of GPL too) > > They have a support forum, im sure they would help people with issues. Their license actually says that they don't provide support. http://www.imagicos.com/get.html 7: GENERAL "Licensor has no obligation to provide support, maintenance, upgrades, modifications or new releases under this Agreement." Argue the semantics of "obligation" if you will, but their license actually says they're not selling support at all. >> No matter what you think, this particular distro looks very shifty to >> me. Possible license violations (not that I'm an expert, and I'd >> welcome an expert opinion). >> > > What's shitty about it? Shifty. With an 'f'. AKA "dodgy", AKA "don't trust them to open a can of beans" > they are a small distro who is bundling CrossOver > and Wine > and annoucing that they provide support for a select number of Windows > applications > and games.. Seems to me you would be delighted by this publisity of Wine. What publicity? The fact that it was brought to the attention of wine-devel? Is anyone ELSE talking about it? > Also, IneedAname CrossOver Pro cost $69.95 up until yesterday, then it went > on Valintines > Day sale and was ruducet to $59.95 ... > > See: > http://www.wine-reviews.net/wine-reviews/cxoffice-linux/codeweavers-valenti… Part of the problem with iMagic is they don't actually tell you what you get. They make a reference to Wine here, a reference to Crossover there. Someone suggested that they ship Crossover Games. Isn't that cheaper than Pro? > And even if they are in some way vilolating the GPL by not hosting the > operating systems source Not the problem. 1) Source of individual apps can be retrieved from appropriate websites. As long as the websites are referenced in the distro's documentation of each app, they're within the grounds of GPL. 2) They don't have to license their own code written for the distro under GPL What it seems to me is that they are selling binaries, not support. They could be selling licenses (for Crossover, mp3 etc), but that's not a matter for us to resolve. If it is determined that what they are selling is binaries, then I'm almost certain that is a violation of GPL. >From memory, GPL allows you to charge for the cost of delivering the software (e.g. CD media, postage), but not the binaries themselves. > that has absoloutly nothing to do with Wine... You guy's need to take that > up with gnu.org I've asked FSF licensing people for their opinion. It could be interesting, but it's likely a complicated case due to poor information provided by iMagic and shipping with multiple commercial licenses. > Tom

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: imagicos

by David Gerard

2009/2/7 Tom Wickline <twickline(a)gmail.com>: > And even if they are in some way vilolating the GPL by not hosting the > operating systems source > that has absoloutly nothing to do with Wine... You guy's need to take that > up with gnu.org No, that's everyone's business. - d.

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: imagicos

by Tom Wickline

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/2/8 Tom Wickline <twickline(a)gmail.com>: > > And your getting the OS and support with the OS. > Wrong. Read the license. They offer absolutely no support for the OS. > You're buying the binaries and that's it. (This could be a violation > of GPL too) They have a support forum, im sure they would help people with issues. > > > > From what Ive read on this thread all your going to do is run resellers > > away from CodeWeavers and small distro's away from bundling Wine. > I would have thought that small distros would be the worst people to > bundle Wine, especially if they charge for it under the illusion of > support. At least the larger distros have the resources to do limited > support of running apps in Wine before sending them off to winehq. > > > Clap, Clap, Clap > > > > I hope you're all happy now! > > No matter what you think, this particular distro looks very shifty to > me. Possible license violations (not that I'm an expert, and I'd > welcome an expert opinion). > > What's shitty about it? they are a small distro who is bundling CrossOver and Wine and annoucing that they provide support for a select number of Windows applications and games.. Seems to me you would be delighted by this publisity of Wine. Also, IneedAname CrossOver Pro cost $69.95 up until yesterday, then it went on Valintines Day sale and was ruducet to $59.95 ... See: http://www.wine-reviews.net/wine-reviews/cxoffice-linux/codeweavers-valenti… And even if they are in some way vilolating the GPL by not hosting the operating systems source that has absoloutly nothing to do with Wine... You guy's need to take that up with gnu.org Tom

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: Fixing AppDB once and for all

by IneedAname

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:20:47 -0500 Zachary Goldberg <zgold(a)bluesata.com> wrote: > Comments? Can we have a wiki like change log for the notes in the AppDB to see whats be changed when and by who. Can we have a easy way for maintainers to (plan check for bugs give there system spec and so on). Sorry my spelling has let me down on that one. Like a sub mailing list or some way of sending the same email to all the maintainers of an app that you are an maintainer of. Why I have said this here and not on the irc is because I can not keep up with real time chat with my spelling skill level.

Feb. 7, 2009

Re: imagicos

by Ben Klein

2009/2/8 Tom Wickline <twickline(a)gmail.com>: > And your getting the OS and support with the OS. Wrong. Read the license. They offer absolutely no support for the OS. You're buying the binaries and that's it. (This could be a violation of GPL too) > From what Ive read on this thread all your going to do is run resellers > away from CodeWeavers and small distro's away from bundling Wine. I would have thought that small distros would be the worst people to bundle Wine, especially if they charge for it under the illusion of support. At least the larger distros have the resources to do limited support of running apps in Wine before sending them off to winehq. > Clap, Clap, Clap > > I hope you're all happy now! No matter what you think, this particular distro looks very shifty to me. Possible license violations (not that I'm an expert, and I'd welcome an expert opinion). > Maybe if you tried to be more constructive and less destructive you > would accomplish allot more then what you have with this Rant, > flame, troll, fubar thread. It's still amusing that they list Mac OS X in their "tested Windows applications" list ... > Tom > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 11:23 AM, IneedAname <wineappdb(a)googlemail.com> > wrote: >> >> Read cost. >> http://www.imagicos.com/why.html >> >> Rip off! >> http://www.imagicos.com/get.html >> >> After a bit more reading it looks like they buy a copy of Crossover games >> and add some open source software and sell it on at 3 times the price. >> >> After all that I feel sick.

Feb. 7, 2009