- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

> Maybe, but for example Mandrake users won't get wine listed in the "remove > software" utility, and that will be confusing > Solving that problem is a desktop issue, I've done a bit of work on it but nothing has got into mainstream yet. OK, but in the mean time I still don't see how one binary can fit all needs, if a binary build for X.org wo'nt run on XFree86 and vice-versa > I don't see why it'd slow down after we freeze libwine, it's not that > many functions... Not all users care, some people still use linux 1.0 > So the user has to upgrade ... and ? use CVS even if he didn't/doesn't want to, that isn't a bug issue but it also isn't a nice thing. > So it could have been anything, in other words. I'd need to see hard > figures in a controlled environment. I can send you a copy of Linux Magazine, I should still have a copy somewhere. You'll have to translate it with google or something because it's in Italian. Also, form sutopackage.org > Nobody should produce any .package files for their own projects until we've hit version 1 I guess we won't be using it too soon anyway.

1 0

IconsDir
by Vitaly Lipatov June 20, 2004

June 20, 2004

Does anyone knows why we have not in registry Software\\Wine\\Wine\\Config\\Wine\IconsDir entry? winemenubuilder can't extract any icons without this dir. -- Lav Vitaly Lipatov Russia, Saint-Petersburg GNU! ALT Linux Team! LaTeX! LyX!

1 0

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

About building one binary of wine for all distros, it's interesting to notice that one the same distro you need different binaries depending on if you're using xfree86 or x.org. Ivan.

2 1

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

> Anyway, Wine doesn't have any menu > integration. And why shouldn't we have the wine programs in the menu? > Compiling it as i586 or i686 should be fine, very few people use > processors old enough to barf on it Sure. > That's what apbuild solves. It lets you compile for glibc 2.2 on a 2.3 > system, amongst other things. And what if the user wants a glibc 2.3 build? > Yes, we still do that, but most people use the Loki installer - in fact > I'm pretty sure it's the most popular by a long way. Maybe, but for example Mandrake users won't get wine listed in the "remove software" utility, and that will be confusing > 1.0 implies API stability, not that it's suddenly good enough that > people won't want to upgrade. I presume by then wine won't change so quickly. And the average user (the average pc user, not the average linux geek) is lazy and often doesn't upgrade if he doesn't have to > That's entirely wrong, it works fine. What did you think the recent > high-gig mmap patches were for? they won't help wine-20040615 any more. > Also some distros are built for i386, others for i586 and others for i686, how can you > have one binary for all, force them to all use i386 (That will be about 30% > slower that a i586 build)? > Just build them for i586 or i686, like I said, that should work just > fine. I really doubt anybody is running Wine on a system that can't cope > with an i586 compiled binary. 30% sounds extremely high anyway, I'd want > to see hard figures on that. That was a benchmark done by comparing Red Hat and Mandrake, it was a few months ago. > Sure, it may be possible to build one binary and run > it anywhere, but in most cases it wouldn't run as well (and as fast) as a build > done natively on the distro. Actually, yes it is. Go read the docs on autopackage.org to find out how. > would be somewhat suboptimal as we sacrifice speed for flexibility and distro neutrality. Do we NEED to sacrifice such things? Also we can't use it until version 1.0, it will be reasonable to look at this then. Ivan.

2 1

Re: docu update
by Ivan June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

> (a) and (b) can be solved by WineHQ providing its own distro-neutral, run > anywhere binary packages. This isn't easy to do, and it means you have to A) Leave out some features (mime types, menus, that most distros handle in a different way) or B) package menu/mime stuff for all distros, meaning the user downloads a big binary but will only need part of it. Also, it means we have it compiled for only one architecture. But not all distros use the same one. For example, all software on Mandrake linux is built for i586, and I don't see why that should change. Also how can you have one binary work on platforms that are so different? For example, some users will still use (and want to use) systems that use glibc 2.2, so what do you do, ship 2 binaries for the different versions of glibc? Also, lots of users like to install software using the native packaging system of their distro, infect CodeWeavers now provides native Debs and RPMs of crossover, or at least it did at some point (Not sure if this is still true). Now, if wine was shipped on a CD (Could be done for 1.0 that won't change for some time), we could just have an installer that detected the distro, and installed the appropriate files, but if users have to download (Remember many users still use 56k modems, and that will stay true for quite some time) they only want to have what they really need. I think we won't be able to have a single binary that works on all distros, they are all just to different, for example wine currently doesn't work on FC2 at all, but works perfectly on other distros. Also some distros are built for i386, others for i586 and others for i686, how can you have one binary for all, force them to all use i386 (That will be about 30% slower that a i586 build)? Sure, it may be possible to build one binary and run it anywhere, but in most cases it wouldn't run as well (and as fast) as a build done natively on the distro. Ivan.

2 1

Yum repository for wine
by Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I can't help but notice that there's no Yum repository for Wine. Or at least I haven't found it yet ;). So, would it be too hard to setup one? In case anyone needs instructions, there is a tutorial here: http://fedoranews.org/alex/tutorial/yum/ Leonardo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFA1JEnnuk7PwJlZIURArRtAKC0tlERDAHam+J5TbOTclwSZS/aXgCgsQl0 3IwAd4mFH4JLFx4aOcEy7pk= =Cwf0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Investigating a crash at startup
by Phil Krylov June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

Hello, I have a program here (IBM Translation Manager v.6.0.4) which crashes wine at startup. The program loads a DLL, and Wine starts importing this DLL's imports from kernel32.dll. It crashes on the first import in dlls/ntdll/loader.c:453, which says: thunk_list->u1.Function = (PDWORD)find_named_export( imp_mod, exports, exp_size, pe_name->Name, pe_name->Hint ); This causes an exception because thunk_list happens to be located in .rdata section of the DLL, which is readonly. Currently I have hacked this around by making all PE sections read-write in map_image() in dlls/ntdll/virtual.c, and the program works. If a Wine guru would like to investigate this problem, I can give any support (e.g., ssh access to my computer with the program). If not - I will be using this hacked version of Wine. -- Best regards, Phil mailto:phil(a)newstar.rinet.ru

2 4

Fax Message Received
by Twickline June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

1 0

Re: Thanks :)
by Twickline June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

1 0

Forum notify
by Johane June 19, 2004

June 19, 2004

1 0