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

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Dan Kegel

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Their reply is probably "well, then do another stable release. >> Our policy is that we prefer to bundle only stable releases." > > We should at least try! From what I've seen, Ubuntu like bleeding-edge > stuff that likes to break other things, like pulseaudio. > > Maybe their problem is with the 2-week release cycle. How many > releases would there be between Ubuntu releases? 6 months, 13 releases > of Wine. Still, isn't it worth contacting the Ubuntu Wine package > maintainer to get their viewpoint? Scott, that's you, right? Can you speak to that? > Unfortunately, new users of Linux systems, particularly Debian-based > distros, are often confused by package management in general. My > brother, who really is a whiz with Windows systems, couldn't work out > how to get new software into Ubuntu. He thought that because > individual developers didn't provide binary packages, he had to > compile everything. I tried to teach him how to use synaptic, and he > said "This is stupid. It should be like MacOSX where you just download > a package and it's installed." Ubuntu tries to make this simple by putting the Add/Remove link right on the main Applications menu. New users still get tripped up by misunderstandings - see the amazing clusterf*ck at http://blogs.computerworld.com/updating_software_in_linux_three_strikes_and… I know exactly what confused him, and most users won't run into it, but hopefully Ubuntu and Linux in general can improve to handle even that kind of user. > I think that properly educating new users is more valuable than > telling them "click on this magic link that does it for you". That only works for most users if the things you're trying to teach them are extremely simple and usable. Having to type anything beyond a single simple URL - and possibly a simple package name - is a serious roadblock. I think that clicking on a single link to add the Wine repo to the package manager strikes a good balance between simplicity and explainability. - Dan

Feb. 28, 2009

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Dan Kegel

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Remco <remco47(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: >> In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to >> have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software >> sources. (See http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration ) >> Scripts are right out, though. It has to be a package, >> because you can't run a script with a single mouse click. > > The WineHQ-provided .deb and .rpm packages themselves could add the > WineHQ repo as part of their installation routine. There is no need > for a tiny separate package. That's an attractive scenario, but I have run into violent objections from admins when I discuss it. They want the two operations separated out into separate packages; it's simply too surprising to have a simple package that installs an app *also* add a new repository. Now, maybe Wine's a special case, and admins won't complain about it. But I wouldn't bet money on that. - Dan

Feb. 28, 2009

Re: search path redux - if office 2007 always uses a private riched20, why does wine interpose its own global one?

by Dan Kegel

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Dylan Smith <dylan.ah.smith(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Say, have we considered making riched20 prefer native? >> That makes the app work, too. > > A couple of things to note, in case they are relevant: > 1. msftedit currently uses the native version by default > 2. builtin msftedit will not work with native riched20, since the classes > native msftedit loads are instead loaded by builtin riched20, and msftedit > just loads riched20 Hmm. So making riched20 prefer native would break apps that use msftedit, if native riched20 but no native msftedit is present? Does this mean that our msftedit is doing things differently than the native one? - Dan

Feb. 28, 2009

Revoking my gpg key 0x4C40A6D9 (Was: Re: mcicda: Compare a file handle with INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE instead of NULL.)

by Michael Stefaniuc

How embarrassing! Having to revoke my new (9 days old) gpg key 0x4C40A6D9. Yes, that was a big part of the passphrase for that key in the CC field ... -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: A revocation certificate should follow iH4EIBECAD4FAkmocts3HQJTZW50IHBhcnQgb2YgdGhlIHBhc3NwaHJhc2UgdG8g YSBwdWJsaWMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0LgAKCRAiLf+YTECm2emfAJ4lg1KaduK1eDw6 gASivxMpRHxZpgCeLaO+C3Vn2XVFCoH3WaxHAO5xZV0= =zhsP -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- /me hangs head in shame michael Michael Stefaniuc wrote: > --- > dlls/mcicda/mcicda.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/dlls/mcicda/mcicda.c b/dlls/mcicda/mcicda.c > index 79f3bae..81dc18f 100644 > --- a/dlls/mcicda/mcicda.c > +++ b/dlls/mcicda/mcicda.c > @@ -463,7 +463,7 @@ static DWORD MCICDA_Open(UINT wDevID, DWORD dwFlags, LPMCI_OPEN_PARMSW lpOpenPar > /* now, open the handle */ > root[0] = root[1] = '\\'; root[2] = '.'; root[3] = '\\'; root[4] = drive; root[5] = ':'; root[6] = '\0'; > wmcda->handle = CreateFileW(root, GENERIC_READ, FILE_SHARE_READ, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING, 0, 0); > - if (wmcda->handle != 0) > + if (wmcda->handle != INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE) > return 0; > > the_error: >

Feb. 27, 2009

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Remco

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/2/28 Remco <remco47(a)gmail.com>: >> Oh, I see. You mean that the package manager prefers the local >> repository if all else is equal. That's solvable by bumping the >> version number of the package that you download from the site. So, in >> 'pseudo-versions', the repository would have these: >> >> wine 1.15-0 >> wine 1.16-0 >> wine 1.17-0 >> >> While the site would provide these for download: >> >> wine 1.15-1 >> wine 1.16-1 >> wine 1.17-1 > > This would fix the problem, but would also mean twice as much space is > required to store the packages. If we're willing to deal with that, go > for it! > Well, I don't know if any package manager really does prefer a locally installed version, to the point that it actually replaces the package with exactly the same one. It would seem like a rather pointless feature. I just tested it on Ubuntu 8.10 by installing the 1.1.15 version from the site. I checked for updates, but Ubuntu tells me there are none available. So Ubuntu is cleared. ;) But if another package management system does work like that, some compromise would have to be made. It's either: * Extra space required, for the proposed solution, or * Less usability, like it is now, or * Extra CPU power required, if you were to bump the version on the server when the file is requested. Remco

Feb. 27, 2009

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Ben Klein

2009/2/28 Remco <remco47(a)gmail.com>: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the >> packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package >> manager can think that the version from the repository should replace >> the locally-installed version. >> > > Oh, I see. You mean that the package manager prefers the local > repository if all else is equal. That's solvable by bumping the > version number of the package that you download from the site. So, in > 'pseudo-versions', the repository would have these: > > wine 1.15-0 > wine 1.16-0 > wine 1.17-0 > > While the site would provide these for download: > > wine 1.15-1 > wine 1.16-1 > wine 1.17-1 This would fix the problem, but would also mean twice as much space is required to store the packages. If we're willing to deal with that, go for it!

Feb. 27, 2009

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Remco

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the > packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package > manager can think that the version from the repository should replace > the locally-installed version. > Oh, I see. You mean that the package manager prefers the local repository if all else is equal. That's solvable by bumping the version number of the package that you download from the site. So, in 'pseudo-versions', the repository would have these: wine 1.15-0 wine 1.16-0 wine 1.17-0 While the site would provide these for download: wine 1.15-1 wine 1.16-1 wine 1.17-1 Remco

Feb. 27, 2009

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Ben Klein

2009/2/28 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>: > Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> I don't see a 1.0.2 being developed though. I'm sure there are still a >> lot of bugs that could be fixed in 1.0.1 - correct me if I'm wrong >> here. > > I don't see a lot of bugs that could be fixed by changes small enough to > go into the stable branch. If you do, please build a list and if there > are enough of them we can certainly do a 1.0.2. > >> But I based my statement on the fact that many users on #winehq >> have come in with a problem in 1.0.1, and upgrading to the latest >> available development version fixes their problem. > > Sure, if 1.0.1 doesn't work, then trying the tip is a good idea, but > that doesn't mean that everybody should do that. There are regressions > in the tip, and there's no reason to push users to upgrade unless they > clearly have trouble with 1.0.1. Now as this is *your* project, AJ, what do you think? Should stable branch be supported better by AppDB/bugzilla etc? At the moment, 1.0.1 is considered "too old" in some cases. The following quotes are from the start of this thread: 2009/2/26 Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com>: > 2009/2/26 Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com>: >> Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's >> browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists. >> This will seriously confuse newcomers who are using >> the 1.0.1 version (e.g. anybody who installs a fresh >> copy of Ubuntu!). >> >> To fix this, we should add 1.0 (or 1.0.1) back into the search box in >> http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application > > Someone mentioned on another thread (or possibly on IRC, I don't > recall) that 1.0-series is too old to be of concern to us. We don't > want test data for 1.0.x; we don't want bug reports for 1.0.x unless > they're still apparent in the development version. Development has > stopped on 1.0.x. Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's what it looks like from current AppDB and bugzilla status.

Feb. 27, 2009

Re: search path redux - if office 2007 always uses a private riched20, why does wine interpose its own global one?

by Dylan Smith

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > Say, have we considered making riched20 prefer native? > That makes the app work, too. > A couple of things to note, in case they are relevant: 1. msftedit currently uses the native version by default 2. builtin msftedit will not work with native riched20, since the classes native msftedit loads are instead loaded by builtin riched20, and msftedit just loads riched20

Feb. 27, 2009

Re: appdb issue: can't search for apps platinum on 1.0.x!

by Ben Klein

2009/2/28 Remco <remco47(a)gmail.com>: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ben Klein <shacklein(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Except that the first package would be technically outside of the >> repository, and would have the same version as the one in the >> repository. This COULD make the package manager think there's an >> update that needs to be downloaded when it doesn't. > > No, it's exactly the same package. The installer of every .deb package > just has an additional file "winehq.list" with the following contents: > > deb http://wine.budgetdedicated.com/apt intrepid main > > Which must be installed into /etc/apt/sources.list.d/. Also, the > scripting capabilities of .deb packages should make it possible to add > the authentication key. > > The same goes for .rpm and their respective updating mechanism. It's > like the packages sanitize their environment. Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package manager can think that the version from the repository should replace the locally-installed version.

Feb. 27, 2009