June 2010 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: [tools/wine.desktop] Add czech translation

by Scott Ritchie

On 06/30/2010 03:46 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote: > On 7/1/2010 02:20, Scott Ritchie wrote: >> Translation by Sven Augustin > >> @@ -20,7 +21,12 @@ Name[sr]=Wine - аДаИаЗаАб� Windows аПб�аОаГб�аАаМаА >> Name[sr(a)latin]=Wine - dizaФ� Windows programa >> Name[hr]=Wine - dizaФ� Windows programa >> Exec=wine start /unix %f >> +<<<<<<< HEAD >> >> MimeType=application/x-ms-dos-executable;application/x-msi;application/x-win-lnk;application/x-ms-shortcut >> >> +======= >> +MimeType=application/x-ms-dos-executable;application/x-msi;application/x-win-lnk; >> >> +>>>>>>> tools/wine.desktop: add Icon=wine to support systems with an >> icon theme >> Icon=wine >> NoDisplay=true >> StartupNotify=true >> + > Conflicts? Already noticed, resent

June 30, 2010

Re: [tools/wine.desktop] Add czech translation

by Nikolay Sivov

On 7/1/2010 02:20, Scott Ritchie wrote: > Translation by Sven Augustin > @@ -20,7 +21,12 @@ Name[sr]=Wine - аДаИаЗаАб� Windows аПб�аОаГб�аАаМаА > Name[sr(a)latin]=Wine - dizaФ� Windows programa > Name[hr]=Wine - dizaФ� Windows programa > Exec=wine start /unix %f > +<<<<<<< HEAD > MimeType=application/x-ms-dos-executable;application/x-msi;application/x-win-lnk;application/x-ms-shortcut > +======= > +MimeType=application/x-ms-dos-executable;application/x-msi;application/x-win-lnk; > +>>>>>>> tools/wine.desktop: add Icon=wine to support systems with an icon theme > Icon=wine > NoDisplay=true > StartupNotify=true > + Conflicts?

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by James Mckenzie

Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> wrote: >Sent: Jun 30, 2010 12:43 PM >To: James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org>, Max TenEyck Woodbury <max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net>, wine-devel(a)winehq.org >Subject: Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN? > >On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie ><jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> ... >> How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status. That way we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled across something in my latest Richedit tests) as well. This would help greatly in our progress towards current and future implementations of the Windows API. >> >> And I agree, adding all of this to the source would make it unwieldy. >> > >So something like "http://wiki.winehq.org/WineAPI/<DLL>/<Function>" ? >If that's acceptable I would not mind a system like that, especially >if the links of documented functions are provided in the source. >Documenting these things is a lot of work, so I'm not about to run off >and do all that work if no-one is ever going to take advantage of it. > +1 Acceptable variables should be listed in an order other than the one on MSDN. We don't want a direct copy, but rather OUR findings using the old 'black box' method. James McKenzie

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by Erich Hoover

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > ... > How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status. That way we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled across something in my latest Richedit tests) as well. This would help greatly in our progress towards current and future implementations of the Windows API. > > And I agree, adding all of this to the source would make it unwieldy. > So something like "http://wiki.winehq.org/WineAPI/<DLL>/<Function>" ? If that's acceptable I would not mind a system like that, especially if the links of documented functions are provided in the source. Documenting these things is a lot of work, so I'm not about to run off and do all that work if no-one is ever going to take advantage of it. Erich Hoover ehoover(a)mines.edu

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by James Mckenzie

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > >Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> writes: > >> Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going >> to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit >> from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API >> documentation. I think it would save a lot of time for new developers >> to get their feet wet if they were able to see directly in the source >> what the different functions are supposed to do (as best as we know) >> and exactly what applications will trigger known edge cases (or if >> there's a test for a given situation). > >That's what the source code and test cases are for. If you rely on the >function documentation you are in trouble anyway, nobody bothers to >update it when new behaviors are discovered. > >If you really want to write good API documentation, as opposed to the >current useless one-sentence-per-parameter description, you'd need >probably a text 10 times the size of the source code for each >function. That can't go in the source files. > How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status. That way we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled across something in my latest Richedit tests) as well. This would help greatly in our progress towards current and future implementations of the Windows API. And I agree, adding all of this to the source would make it unwieldy. James McKenzie

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by Max TenEyck Woodbury

On 06/30/2010 03:13 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Erich Hoover<ehoover(a)mines.edu> writes: > >> Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going >> to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit >> from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API >> documentation. I think it would save a lot of time for new developers >> to get their feet wet if they were able to see directly in the source >> what the different functions are supposed to do (as best as we know) >> and exactly what applications will trigger known edge cases (or if >> there's a test for a given situation). > > That's what the source code and test cases are for. If you rely on the > function documentation you are in trouble anyway, nobody bothers to > update it when new behaviors are discovered. > > If you really want to write good API documentation, as opposed to the > current useless one-sentence-per-parameter description, you'd need > probably a text 10 times the size of the source code for each > function. That can't go in the source files. > That documentation has to be stored somewhere. Where?

June 30, 2010

updating spec files - which windows version to use?

by Austin English

Howdy, I was looking at http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23421, and wanted to add a stub for it. Using winedump on a Windows 7 shlwapi.dll gives different exports than Windows XP SP3 shlwapi.dll. Which dll should the spec file be updated to match? I'm assuming the latest and greatest, since eventually applications will head that direction. An additional related question. Some of the functions that are ordinals in previous Windows versions are now exported (e.g., ParseUrlA/W seems to have been documented/exported since Vista). Should the spec file be adjusted to match the newer behavior? I'm assuming this will have to wait until after 1.2 to be applied... Thanks! Austin

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by Alexandre Julliard

Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> writes: > Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going > to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit > from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API > documentation. I think it would save a lot of time for new developers > to get their feet wet if they were able to see directly in the source > what the different functions are supposed to do (as best as we know) > and exactly what applications will trigger known edge cases (or if > there's a test for a given situation). That's what the source code and test cases are for. If you rely on the function documentation you are in trouble anyway, nobody bothers to update it when new behaviors are discovered. If you really want to write good API documentation, as opposed to the current useless one-sentence-per-parameter description, you'd need probably a text 10 times the size of the source code for each function. That can't go in the source files. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by Erich Hoover

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> writes: > >> Personally, I think that it would be really good to do a better job of >> documenting the API functions (particularly edge cases). I'm >> currently very busy with work, but if Alexandre is ok with >> documentation-only patches then this is something I'm tempted to jump >> on (in the areas where I have sufficient familiarity) when I have some >> more free time. > > I'm not OK with it. If you want to start a project to document the > Windows API, go ahead, but don't put that in the Wine source, that's not > where it belongs. Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API documentation. I think it would save a lot of time for new developers to get their feet wet if they were able to see directly in the source what the different functions are supposed to do (as best as we know) and exactly what applications will trigger known edge cases (or if there's a test for a given situation). Erich Hoover ehoover(a)mines.edu

June 30, 2010

Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?

by Alexandre Julliard

Erich Hoover <ehoover(a)mines.edu> writes: > Personally, I think that it would be really good to do a better job of > documenting the API functions (particularly edge cases). I'm > currently very busy with work, but if Alexandre is ok with > documentation-only patches then this is something I'm tempted to jump > on (in the areas where I have sufficient familiarity) when I have some > more free time. I'm not OK with it. If you want to start a project to document the Windows API, go ahead, but don't put that in the Wine source, that's not where it belongs. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

June 30, 2010