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

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdi32: Add support for emulating bold faces of bitmap fonts. Take 2. Resend.

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > >> You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, > >> you still haven't done that AFAICS. > > > > That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests, > > and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with > > different font sizes) works just fine with current approach. > > Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed > that Windows messes them up the same way? What I have done is a comparison of screenshots of the affected application produced under Windows and Wine. If there will be a need in futher improvements I'll certainly have a look what can be enhanced. > > Besides, > > status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation. > > What has this got to do with anything? If your patch receives comments > you have to address them, I'm not going to review it if someone else > already did. Shouldn't the patch status reflect that? Or commenting on a patch automatically makes it rejected? What about the test sent as 1/2? It has got no comments. -- Dmitry.

June 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdi32: Add support for emulating bold faces of bitmap fonts. Take 2. Resend.

by Alexandre Julliard

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > >> > Any chance for at least a comment? >> >> You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, >> you still haven't done that AFAICS. > > That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests, > and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with > different font sizes) works just fine with current approach. Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed that Windows messes them up the same way? > Besides, > status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation. What has this got to do with anything? If your patch receives comments you have to address them, I'm not going to review it if someone else already did. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

June 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdi32: Add support for emulating bold faces of bitmap fonts. Take 2. Resend.

by Dmitry Timoshkov

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> wrote: > > Any chance for at least a comment? > > You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, > you still haven't done that AFAICS. That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests, and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with different font sizes) works just fine with current approach. Besides, status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation. -- Dmitry.

June 1, 2012

Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdi32: Add support for emulating bold faces of bitmap fonts. Take 2. Resend.

by Alexandre Julliard

Dmitry Timoshkov <dmitry(a)baikal.ru> writes: > Any chance for at least a comment? You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes, you still haven't done that AFAICS. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

June 1, 2012

size of wine packages

by Marcus Meissner

Hi, As we have crossed the 100MB installed size (stripped) for the Wine RPM packages (stripped), this makes a Wow64 capable installation taking around 200MB these days. Can we reduce this size? eg. kernel32.dll.so has 1.6MB of static data inside itself, which is puzzling me a bit. (winerror.res is 1.3MB, winerror.mc is 0.068 MB ... Huh? Translations blowing this up?) Out of 100MB /usr/lib/wine/, e.g. I have here 67 MB of .text (73MB on x86_64) 11 MB of .data (static data) Ciao, Marcus

June 1, 2012

Re: Mono?!?

by Max TenEyck Woodbury

On 06/01/2012 12:51 AM, Vincent Povirk wrote: >> If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and >> while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to >> remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' >> script. > > If you run "wine uninstaller" and you have it installed (which you > probably don't), it will show up in the list as something you can > remove. > > http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono also has a command line to remove it that > will work for the foreseeable future. > Thank you. That was helpful. I removed Mono and several older versions of Gecko from various prefix directories.

June 1, 2012

Re: Mono?!?

by Max TenEyck Woodbury

On 06/01/2012 12:40 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement > to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the > standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents > when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java > side of things than with Mono. No, I do NOT 'realize' Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement .... I have heard that such a thing exists, but with the recent debacle by Oracle and tSCOg's treatment of 'irrevocable agreement"s, I do NOT trust them to not find a way to get around such a pronouncement. In fact I expect that they could simply ignore any such promise if they found it convenient to do so and that they will do so eventually. Further, there are enough weasel words in that pronouncement that I think they plan to get nasty anyway. I realize ANYBODY can sue ANYBODY, but I prefer to stay clear of tar pits like MONO when I can. (There is also an indication that .NET is a dead letter and MONO will become unnecessary.)

June 1, 2012

Re: Mono?!?

by Vincent Povirk

> If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and > while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to > remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' > script. If you run "wine uninstaller" and you have it installed (which you probably don't), it will show up in the list as something you can remove. http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono also has a command line to remove it that will work for the foreseeable future.

June 1, 2012

Re: Mono?!?

by Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ)

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury < max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net> wrote: > On 05/31/2012 11:05 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury > > <max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net <mailto:max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net>**> wrote: > > > > When did WINE start requiring MONO? > > > > I have a VERY strong DISLIKE for MONO and do NOT want it on my > machines. > > > > Seems to be a recent addition. Is it possible to NOT use it? PLEASE! > > > > > > > > First off, what is your beef with Mono? It's a decent technology that > > makes .NET available on non-Windows platforms. > > > > Secondly, the wine-mono addon is optional, I believe. You do not have to > > install it. > > My beef (as you call it, it is more an outright RAGE in fact) is > PATENTS. Mono uses Microsoft's own technology that are covered by their > STINKING patents, making any system that has them installed vulnerable > to all kinds of legal hassles if Microsoft decides to get nastier than > they already are. > > And the installation request when running 'make test' does NOT mention > that you have the option of NOT installing the beast! So it does NOT > look like it is OPTIONAL. > > If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and > while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to > remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' > script. > > The ONLY way I could trust MONO is if it had a GPL 3+ or LGPL 3+ > license that had been court tested and was therefore immune to > Microsoft's legal shenanigans. I do NOT believe any of the other FOSS > and definitely the plain OSS licenses provide the necessary protection. > > And, yes, I am more than a little crazed on this subject. > > > You realize that Microsoft has a legally binding irrevocable agreement to not assert patents on .NET implementations that comply with the standard, right? Mono falls under that. I wouldn't worry about patents when it comes to Mono. We're more likely to have problems on the Java side of things than with Mono.

June 1, 2012

Re: Mono?!?

by Max TenEyck Woodbury

On 05/31/2012 11:05 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury > <max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net <mailto:max(a)mtew.isa-geek.net>> wrote: > > When did WINE start requiring MONO? > > I have a VERY strong DISLIKE for MONO and do NOT want it on my machines. > > Seems to be a recent addition. Is it possible to NOT use it? PLEASE! > > > > First off, what is your beef with Mono? It's a decent technology that > makes .NET available on non-Windows platforms. > > Secondly, the wine-mono addon is optional, I believe. You do not have to > install it. My beef (as you call it, it is more an outright RAGE in fact) is PATENTS. Mono uses Microsoft's own technology that are covered by their STINKING patents, making any system that has them installed vulnerable to all kinds of legal hassles if Microsoft decides to get nastier than they already are. And the installation request when running 'make test' does NOT mention that you have the option of NOT installing the beast! So it does NOT look like it is OPTIONAL. If it IS optional, then there should be a clear way to REMOVE it, and while I have not looked at the situation long enough to find out how to remove it, I did not see something as obvious as an 'uninstall-mono' script. The ONLY way I could trust MONO is if it had a GPL 3+ or LGPL 3+ license that had been court tested and was therefore immune to Microsoft's legal shenanigans. I do NOT believe any of the other FOSS and definitely the plain OSS licenses provide the necessary protection. And, yes, I am more than a little crazed on this subject.

June 1, 2012