May 2012 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Find Wine software installer

by Shanuka Wijekoon

haiiii I have a problem that i need to track the software installation.that means I need to keep the location where the files are installed. Are there any place in wine source code to get help for my problem. thank you.

May 1, 2012

Re: kernel32/tests: Add tests for K32GetModuleFileNameEx

by Bruno Jesus

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 02:34, Bruno Jesus <00cpxxx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Add some tests required for http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30543 Please, ignore this patch. It was based on old git. Apologies, Bruno

May 1, 2012

Re: Ubuntu 12.04 (version#2, drop previous mail)

by Eric Pouech

> This is the downside people in this thread are complaining about: > compiling 32-bit programs on a 64-bit Ubuntu install is now slightly > more difficult. However, Wine is currently the _only_ piece of > software I've encountered that needs to be built for both arches on > the same machine in order to be usable. We are beautiful special > snowflakes here: Wine developers who aren't using the build daemons is > about the extent of the current use case. <snip> > > I'm beginning to have memories of what happened when we removed gcc > from the default install. Setting up a 32-bit chroot for building > Wine should not be complicated -- I'll present a script to make it > even easier soon. You can build in a single command and even use > things like ccache and the like to speed it up. > to summarize: ubuntu doesn't do anything to support developers as it implies using ubuntu build daemons, not developers' machine (and all the relevant environment) as it implies to use chroot even on a multi lib arch => multi arch is then for users, not developers bye bye ubuntu then for the sake of record (I won't even dare to send it to wine-patches) a workaround ubuntu recvmsg breakage in order to get ptrace API to be usable on 12.04 diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/server.c b/dlls/ntdll/server.c index 8a01d22..6c8e759 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/server.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/server.c @@ -1016,6 +1016,37 @@ void server_init_process(void) send_server_task_port(); #endif #if defined(__linux__) && defined(HAVE_PRCTL) + /* work around Ubuntu's recvmsg breakage */ + if (!server_pid) + { + int zfd; + struct flock fl; + char tmp[4096]; + strcpy(tmp, wine_get_server_dir()); + strcat(tmp, "/"); + strcat(tmp, LOCKNAME); + + if ((zfd = open( tmp, O_RDONLY )) == -1) + fatal_error( "no lock present %s.\n", tmp ); + + fl.l_type = F_WRLCK; + fl.l_whence = SEEK_SET; + fl.l_start = 0; + fl.l_len = 1; + if (fcntl( zfd, F_GETLK, &fl ) != -1) + { + if (fl.l_type == F_WRLCK) + { + /* the file is locked */ + fprintf(stderr, "getting server_pid from lock %d\n", fl.l_pid); + server_pid = fl.l_pid; + } + fatal_error( "cannot get pid from lock (lock isn't locked)\n"); + } + else + fatal_error( "cannot get pid from lock\n"); + close(zfd); + } /* work around Ubuntu's ptrace breakage */ if (server_pid != -1) prctl( 0x59616d61 /* PR_SET_PTRACER */, server_pid ); #endif -- Eric Pouech "The problem with designing something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of a complete idiot." (Douglas Adams)

May 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 4/4] amstream: Add stubbed implementation of AudioStreamSample. (try 2) (resend)

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18153 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

May 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 3/4] amstream: Add stubbed implementation of DirectDrawStreamSample. (try 2) (resend)

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18152 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

May 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 1/4] dmusic: Add tests to enumerate master clocks.

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18151 Your paranoid android. === WINEBUILD (build) === Patch failed to apply

May 1, 2012

Re: Fwd: Ubuntu 12.04 (version#2, drop previous mail)

by Scott Ritchie

On 4/30/12 6:24 AM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: > Eric Pouech wrote: >> Le 29/04/2012 22:44, Eric Pouech a écrit : >>> for the devels having upgraded their boxes to ubuntu 12.04, here's a >>> couple of stuff I had to do, especially to get 32bit wine compile >>> This could be useful if you want to have a dual x86_64 : i386 setup >>> >>> this is an updated version to what I already sent to scott ritchie >>> of course this is not a step by step installation >> I forgot to mention that ubuntu devels did a crappy job in 12.04 >> I'm really starting to get angry at their inability to take care of >> upward compat in what they do > > Maybe looking at 'sudo apt-get build-dep wine' and the Wine packaging > scripts will also reveal what's needed to build 32-bit Wine on Ubuntu > 12.04 64-bit. > > In general the 12.04 release still has loads of bugs however. It seems > the developers couldn't manage to look over all the reported bugs > anymore before the release, but decided to release anyhow. They probably > only focused on the crash bugs, because there are not many crashes, but > many things do not work yet as they should. I expect 12.04.1 will > contain a very significant amount of fixes. > It's sort of a consequence of time-based releases, unfortunately. We were very conservative about new versions of stuff that got into 12.04 to try and minimize new bugs, but stuff invariably comes up. Thanks, Scott Ritchie

May 1, 2012

Re: Fwd: Ubuntu 12.04 (version#2, drop previous mail)

by Scott Ritchie

On 4/30/12 2:17 AM, GOUJON Alexandre wrote: > On 04/29/2012 10:44 PM, Eric Pouech wrote: >> for the devels having upgraded their boxes to ubuntu 12.04, here's a >> couple of stuff I had to do, especially to get 32bit wine compile > That's funny because I just tried yesterday and filed [1] to see what > developers think. > They are aware of the issue but will need some time to fix it. > > What I discovered is that installing gcc:i386 on amd64 doesn't mean what > we think. > It replaces the (amd64) gcc and wants to remove gcc and build-esential > (and others). > What we want is gcc-multilib which provides libc6-dev-i386. > The other way also exists with libc6-dev-amd64:i386 (compiling programs > targeting amd64 from a i386 computer) > > For the other issues, I guess we'll have to file as many bug as packages > which are not multiarch-able. > (I don't know how to say it, hope you get the idea) > Yes, this would be prudent. Tag them multiarch too. It's the next phase of the multiarch transition (there are a few lingering packages that aren't properly multiarch as well. It's a good chunk of work, as we have to go package by package and identify if they: 1) Have architecture-specific strings in the -dev stuff 2) Move them into arch-specific folders when appropriate 3) Move files that aren't arch-specific into -common packages that are arch:all 4) Tag the resulting package multiarch: same 5) Send changes back to Debian (which is still in the multiarch bronze age) Thanks, Scott Ritchie

May 1, 2012

Re: Ubuntu 12.04 (version#2, drop previous mail)

by Scott Ritchie

On 4/30/12 1:37 AM, Eric Pouech wrote: >> This is because you _cannot_ install the 32-bit -dev packages onto >> 12.04. It's not just symlinks that are missing, many of the header >> files are different between the arches. > I'm not sure this is a generic rule, and if it were, then exclusion > between i386 and x86_64 should be defined on most dev packages, and > it's not the case > also note, that in some cases, arch specific headers are moved to arch > dependent directories (e.g. jpeg, glib...), which should also parallel > install of multi-arch libs > in any case, the job by ubuntu folks in 12.04 done is crappy, to say the least > Some context would help here: In previous Ubuntus we ran into quite a few bugs (eg Wine's mpeg123 issues) that occurred because we used a "64-bit header file" with a 32-bit library and .so symlink. This in turn was because the package manager did not have a concept of foreign-architectures -- 32-bit support on Ubuntu64 was done by installing a giant omni-package called ia32-libs that contained every library that might ever be useful (plus some .so links). Things are _much_ better in 12.04. Wine can actually be built and installed biarch as a user package! Ubuntu users are, for the first time, actually using 64-bit Wine when possible because the package manager understands multiarch and, more importantly, because the underlying libraries are coinstallable with themselves. This was not done for the -dev packages yet due to lack of time -- getting the actual libraries in users hands so programs like Wine can work was much more important. So some foo-dev:i386 will install, but will erase foo-dev:amd64. This is the downside people in this thread are complaining about: compiling 32-bit programs on a 64-bit Ubuntu install is now slightly more difficult. However, Wine is currently the _only_ piece of software I've encountered that needs to be built for both arches on the same machine in order to be usable. We are beautiful special snowflakes here: Wine developers who aren't using the build daemons is about the extent of the current use case. >> Just do the chroot. You will save yourself so much grief and it will >> actually work. > if the ubuntu folks keep this state of mind, then they'll continue to sink > the best solution is then to pick up another distro > A+ > I'm beginning to have memories of what happened when we removed gcc from the default install. Setting up a 32-bit chroot for building Wine should not be complicated -- I'll present a script to make it even easier soon. You can build in a single command and even use things like ccache and the like to speed it up. Thanks, Scott Ritchie

May 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 4/4] ws2_32/tests: Test for IOCP behavior without AcceptEx call (resend).

by Marvin

Hi, While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures. Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be wrong, but could you please double-check? Full results can be found at http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=18138 Your paranoid android. === W7PROX64 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:5628: Test failed: Internal status is c0000120 === TEST64_W7SP1 (64 bit sock) === sock.c:5628: Test failed: Internal status is c0000120

May 1, 2012