September 2009 - Wine-Devel

Re: [PATCH 5/5] wined3d: Print a warning when an ARB program exceeds the native resource limits.

by Henri Verbeet

2009/9/2 Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmx.at>: > Am Wednesday 02 September 2009 09:27:58 schrieb Henri Verbeet: >> + GL_EXTCALL(glGetProgramivARB(GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB, >> GL_PROGRAM_UNDER_NATIVE_LIMITS_ARB, &native)); + >> checkGLcall("glGetProgramivARB()"); >> + if (!native) WARN("Program exceeds native resource limits.\n"); >> + } > shouldn't that be a FIXME? The most likely reasons for this are either that we > advertise incorrect caps, or our privately added code breaks the limits, or > that the driver is broken. In the first two cases we can do something, and in > the other case we might want to report the issue to the driver devs > > That said, I haven't seen a GL implementation yet that successfully compiles > and SW-emulates a program that exceeds the limits. > It isn't necessarily a problem when this happens, it's more meant as a diagnostic while debugging.

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: [PATCH 5/5] wined3d: Print a warning when an ARB program exceeds the native resource limits.

by Stefan Dösinger

Am Wednesday 02 September 2009 09:27:58 schrieb Henri Verbeet: > + GL_EXTCALL(glGetProgramivARB(GL_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM_ARB, > GL_PROGRAM_UNDER_NATIVE_LIMITS_ARB, &native)); + > checkGLcall("glGetProgramivARB()"); > + if (!native) WARN("Program exceeds native resource limits.\n"); > + } shouldn't that be a FIXME? The most likely reasons for this are either that we advertise incorrect caps, or our privately added code breaks the limits, or that the driver is broken. In the first two cases we can do something, and in the other case we might want to report the issue to the driver devs That said, I haven't seen a GL implementation yet that successfully compiles and SW-emulates a program that exceeds the limits.

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: [PATCH 1/3] jscript: Added to_primitive on hosting objects test.

by Alexandre Julliard

Jacek Caban <jacek(a)codeweavers.com> writes: > --- > dlls/jscript/tests/run.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) It doesn't work here: ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M jscript.dll -T ../../.. -p jscript_test.exe.so run.c && touch run.ok run.c:216: Test failed: V_VT(pvarRes) = 63784 make[2]: *** [run.ok] Error 1 -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: Mirror Space

by Ben Klein

2009/9/2 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>: > 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: > >> I don't think it's worth bothering to set that up, as my medium term >> plan is to migrate users to a real Launchpad PPA for Ubuntu 9.10. In >> 9.10, it'll actually be much easier to add PPAs (and their unique key), >> so I can cut the instructions on the download page dramatically. >> Launchpad has that sophisticated mirroring infrastructure already. > > > Oh yes,that's the obvious answer :-) I assume you'll still be putting > Debian builds on wine.budgetdedicated.com? (Or can Debian feed from an > Ubuntu PPA as well?) Scott's not doing the Debian packages any more; that's my job (with Maurilio providing the space for the repository and archives). I'd welcome a Debian package apt mirror, but I don't think Debian likes PPA.

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: Mirror Space

by David Gerard

2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: > I don't think it's worth bothering to set that up, as my medium term > plan is to migrate users to a real Launchpad PPA for Ubuntu 9.10. In > 9.10, it'll actually be much easier to add PPAs (and their unique key), > so I can cut the instructions on the download page dramatically. > Launchpad has that sophisticated mirroring infrastructure already. Oh yes,that's the obvious answer :-) I assume you'll still be putting Debian builds on wine.budgetdedicated.com? (Or can Debian feed from an Ubuntu PPA as well?) - d.

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: cpp check run monday Aug 31

by chris ahrendt

ok will report a false positive thanks chris ----- Original Message ---- From: Vincent Povirk <madewokherd+8cd9(a)gmail.com> To: chris ahrendt <celticht32(a)yahoo.com> Cc: wine-devel(a)winehq.org Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 9:30:46 AM Subject: Re: cpp check run monday Aug 31 > [/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/windowscodecs/bmpencode.c:336]: (error) > Division by zero > [/home/cahrendt/wine-git/dlls/windowscodecs/bmpencode.c:337]: (error) > Division by zero http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=blob;f=dlls/windowscodecs/bmpencod… I'm going to need someone to explain to me how a division by a literal 0.0254 can be a "Division by zero". -- Vincent Povirk

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: Mirror Space

by Scott Ritchie

Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: >> Ben Klein wrote: >>> 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: >>>> Austin English wrote: >>>>> Since when is a mirror a bad thing? >>>>> >>>> It isn't, of course, however it can't replace the role of apt server >>>> (which would require users to manually alter their sources.list file). >>> Just like how they have to alter their sources.list to get to >>> budgetdedicated in the first place? The point is that they have a >>> backup solution for when the main apt server is down. >>> >>> Note that Debian mirrors are apt mirrors and are occasionally out of >>> sync - c'est la vie - and the installer actually asks you what mirror >>> you want to use so it can configure sources.list. >>> >> The budgetdedicated actually was mirrored for a while (using nslookup >> round-robin redirection) and it created a bunch of problems. > > So don't do nslookup round-robin redirection. It's silly for mirrors. > The point of a mirror is you have a completely distinct server > somewhere else that provides the same data, thus creating data > security. If the main server is down, the mirror can be accessed - but > yes, it has to be explicitly accessed (by a modified sources.list in > an apt mirror). > I do keep a local mirror of all the content, and as of now I actually have two separate budgetdedicated servers hosting the data (wine.budgetdedicated.com and wineold.budgetdedicated.com) More doesn't hurt, of course. >> It's more reliable to just have a mirror of the archive page and let >> people install manually in the case that it's offline, since I seriously >> don't expect another outage like this again. Then the manual install >> will be updated automagically on the next release when the server comes >> back up. > > You don't need to tell me about versioning in apt :P but it won't be > more reliable to mirror only the archives and not the apt server. If > you mirror the full apt repository, then you get load sharing. If you > only mirror the archives, then the mirror is only used by people who > know and can be bothered to install manually. > Sure, it doesn't hurt to mirror the apt archive too, but I'm not sure how much actual load balancing is going to happen at this point since it will require a manual change on each user. Once Karmic comes out in 2 months, new users will be pointed to the PPA instead. I could also point Jaunty and earlier users there as well, albeit with longer instructions. >> It was only offline for the whole weekend because I was physically out >> of town away from the internet and genuinely unaware of it. I should >> probably give someone my phone number so they can text me if needed. > > I don't mean to offend, but you seem a bit possessive about the apt repository. I want to phase it out and get rid of it. Funny kind of possessiveness ;) Thanks, Scott Ritchie

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: Mirror Space

by Ben Klein

2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: > Ben Klein wrote: >> 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: >>> Austin English wrote: >>>> Since when is a mirror a bad thing? >>>> >>> It isn't, of course, however it can't replace the role of apt server >>> (which would require users to manually alter their sources.list file). >> >> Just like how they have to alter their sources.list to get to >> budgetdedicated in the first place? The point is that they have a >> backup solution for when the main apt server is down. >> >> Note that Debian mirrors are apt mirrors and are occasionally out of >> sync - c'est la vie - and the installer actually asks you what mirror >> you want to use so it can configure sources.list. >> > > The budgetdedicated actually was mirrored for a while (using nslookup > round-robin redirection) and it created a bunch of problems. So don't do nslookup round-robin redirection. It's silly for mirrors. The point of a mirror is you have a completely distinct server somewhere else that provides the same data, thus creating data security. If the main server is down, the mirror can be accessed - but yes, it has to be explicitly accessed (by a modified sources.list in an apt mirror). > It's more reliable to just have a mirror of the archive page and let > people install manually in the case that it's offline, since I seriously > don't expect another outage like this again. Then the manual install > will be updated automagically on the next release when the server comes > back up. You don't need to tell me about versioning in apt :P but it won't be more reliable to mirror only the archives and not the apt server. If you mirror the full apt repository, then you get load sharing. If you only mirror the archives, then the mirror is only used by people who know and can be bothered to install manually. > It was only offline for the whole weekend because I was physically out > of town away from the internet and genuinely unaware of it. I should > probably give someone my phone number so they can text me if needed. I don't mean to offend, but you seem a bit possessive about the apt repository.

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: Mirror Space

by Scott Ritchie

Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: >> Austin English wrote: >>> Since when is a mirror a bad thing? >>> >> It isn't, of course, however it can't replace the role of apt server >> (which would require users to manually alter their sources.list file). > > Just like how they have to alter their sources.list to get to > budgetdedicated in the first place? The point is that they have a > backup solution for when the main apt server is down. > > Note that Debian mirrors are apt mirrors and are occasionally out of > sync - c'est la vie - and the installer actually asks you what mirror > you want to use so it can configure sources.list. > The budgetdedicated actually was mirrored for a while (using nslookup round-robin redirection) and it created a bunch of problems. It's more reliable to just have a mirror of the archive page and let people install manually in the case that it's offline, since I seriously don't expect another outage like this again. Then the manual install will be updated automagically on the next release when the server comes back up. It was only offline for the whole weekend because I was physically out of town away from the internet and genuinely unaware of it. I should probably give someone my phone number so they can text me if needed. Thanks, Scott Ritchie

Sept. 2, 2009

Re: Mirror Space

by Ben Klein

2009/9/2 Scott Ritchie <scott(a)open-vote.org>: > Austin English wrote: >> Since when is a mirror a bad thing? >> > > It isn't, of course, however it can't replace the role of apt server > (which would require users to manually alter their sources.list file). Just like how they have to alter their sources.list to get to budgetdedicated in the first place? The point is that they have a backup solution for when the main apt server is down. Note that Debian mirrors are apt mirrors and are occasionally out of sync - c'est la vie - and the installer actually asks you what mirror you want to use so it can configure sources.list. > So mirror the archive page, sure, but it'll still be a big problem when > it's down. Apt mirror is the way to go.

Sept. 2, 2009