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

Re: Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Austin English

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> I don't suppose you've changed your mind on also removing the obsolete >>> OS's (BSDI, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, SunOS, OS/2, Mac OS X < 10.3)? >> >> Did he say he wasn't for it? I didn't catch that. Dan, here's a vote >> for removing those. I can't comment on all of them, but SunOS has >> been obsolete for a decade, OS/2 nearly as long. > > He's referring to an old discussion we had. I'm ok with deleting > any that have zero valid instances in the bug tracker and are obsolete. > All the SunOS instances should really be Solaris, I think. Yes, they should be. They're all mine, I've moved them. > So IRIX, SunOS, and OS/2 can go now. We do have one (abandoned > but recent) real bug against HP-UX and HP, so maybe it's not quite > time to delete those (but we should rename HP as HP-PA to keep > people with HP PCs from choosing it). If it's worth keeping an extra platform/OS for one bug, I suppose. Could simply set it to 'other'. > Why do we have versions on Mac OS X? How about we combine them all? It can make a big difference in the bug. The X.org version in OS X (partially?) depends on what OS X version you have. Some bugs will only show up in Tiger, because Leopard has them fixed on Apple's end. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, this is based off of what I've seen on wine-users). -- -Austin

May 29, 2009

Re: Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Dan Kegel

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't suppose you've changed your mind on also removing the obsolete >> OS's (BSDI, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, SunOS, OS/2, Mac OS X < 10.3)? > > Did he say he wasn't for it? I didn't catch that. Dan, here's a vote > for removing those. I can't comment on all of them, but SunOS has > been obsolete for a decade, OS/2 nearly as long. He's referring to an old discussion we had. I'm ok with deleting any that have zero valid instances in the bug tracker and are obsolete. All the SunOS instances should really be Solaris, I think. So IRIX, SunOS, and OS/2 can go now. We do have one (abandoned but recent) real bug against HP-UX and HP, so maybe it's not quite time to delete those (but we should rename HP as HP-PA to keep people with HP PCs from choosing it). Why do we have versions on Mac OS X? How about we combine them all? - Dan

May 29, 2009

Re: Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Austin English

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't suppose you've changed your mind on also removing the obsolete >> OS's (BSDI, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, SunOS, OS/2, Mac OS X < 10.3)? > > Did he say he wasn't for it? I didn't catch that. Dan, here's a vote > for removing those. I can't comment on all of them, but SunOS has > been obsolete for a decade, OS/2 nearly as long. It was in a thread a few months ago: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-November/070494.html He removed several, but those few I mentioned are still there. -- -Austin

May 29, 2009

Re: Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Juan Lang

> I don't suppose you've changed your mind on also removing the obsolete > OS's (BSDI, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, SunOS, OS/2, Mac OS X < 10.3)? Did he say he wasn't for it? I didn't catch that. Dan, here's a vote for removing those. I can't comment on all of them, but SunOS has been obsolete for a decade, OS/2 nearly as long. --Juan

May 29, 2009

Re: Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Austin English

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Juan Lang <juan.lang(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> The only use of these platforms was three mistaken >> bug reports that probably wanted PC. I don't see >> any reason to keep these old system types around >> any more. >> OK to remove? >> (Suggested in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13363 ) > > Please. > --Juan I don't suppose you've changed your mind on also removing the obsolete OS's (BSDI, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, SunOS, OS/2, Mac OS X < 10.3)? -- -Austin

May 29, 2009

Re: Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Juan Lang

> The only use of these platforms was three mistaken > bug reports that probably wanted PC. I don't see > any reason to keep these old system types around > any more. > OK to remove? > (Suggested in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13363 ) Please. --Juan

May 29, 2009

Time to remove obsolete platforms HP, SGI, and DEC?

by Dan Kegel

The only use of these platforms was three mistaken bug reports that probably wanted PC. I don't see any reason to keep these old system types around any more. OK to remove? (Suggested in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13363 )

May 29, 2009

Re: DIB engine

by James Mckenzie

Luke: > >Heh, I wonder if someone should approach Autodesk and say, "Give us >sponsorship and we'll get Autocad running on Linux" they surely have >deep pockets :) > If Autodesk were interested in making AutoCad work with Linux, they would make a native version, not try to get it working with Wine. Sorry, but them's the facts. Now, if you were to speak up with your wallet and donate to the effort, that is a vastly different story. Sadly, we are on our own to get AutoCad fully working with Wine. I don't expect any assistance from AutoDesk nor any of the major Linux players. James McKenzie

May 29, 2009

Re: DIB engine

by James Mckenzie

>As was said in the other thread, just designing it alone would take a >few months work. AJ is really busy with other things, and a few months >work is both a lot of money and a lot of wasted productivity. No one >is stepping up to sponsor the work, so it's a bit hard for him to take >that on. Who is asking AJ to do all of the work. Huw Davies and Max have worked out what is needed to get this into Wine. All we need is guidance on what is acceptable and how we should proceed. This seems to be a serious shortcoming on AJs part. Without this, any further work would be futile and could end up being very frustrating. I've seen this from Huw and it is starting to come from Max. AJ needs to get some time together and write up what is and is not acceptable as far as code style, fashion and what he expects out of the development efforts for the DIB engine. Making a statement after months of work is IHMO very unacceptable. Also, I don't see this as circular, but the 'snake' of getting AJ to accept code into the codebase is. Very respectfully submitted, James McKenzie

May 29, 2009

Re: DIB engine

by Luke Benstead

2009/5/29 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>: > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:50 AM, chris ahrendt <celticht32(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Right Austin, >> I have... thats why I asked the question why not sit down and say >> here is what we want from the DIB engine here is the Spec do this .. >> I have seen the here is what I don't like. But nothing showing what >> exactly is needed. This would be the first step in resolving this >> circular argument / discussion which is what I am trying to >> facilitate =D. Until that is done all we can do is have this same >> circular argument / discussion =D > > As was said in the other thread, just designing it alone would take a > few months work. AJ is really busy with other things, and a few months > work is both a lot of money and a lot of wasted productivity. No one > is stepping up to sponsor the work, so it's a bit hard for him to take > that on. > > -- > -Austin > > > Heh, I wonder if someone should approach Autodesk and say, "Give us sponsorship and we'll get Autocad running on Linux" they surely have deep pockets :) Luke. P.S. Must learn to reply to all, sorry Austin

May 29, 2009