Re: Implement DVD_ReadStructure
Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 22:01 +1100 schrieb Troy Rollo:
ChangeLog: Implement DVD_ReadStructure
--- /dev/null 2006-02-03 18:20:42.451563144 +1100 +++ wine-git/include/ntddcdvd.h 2006-02-05 21:50:39.000000000 +1100
Please use "include/ddk/" -- By By ... ... Detlef
Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 22:01 +1100 schrieb Troy Rollo:
ChangeLog: Implement DVD_ReadStructure
--- /dev/null 2006-02-03 18:20:42.451563144 +1100 +++ wine-git/include/ntddcdvd.h 2006-02-05 21:50:39.000000000 +1100
Please use "include/ddk/"
As a side note. Has anyone worked out how Windows creates the unique DVD ID? James
Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 22:01 +1100 schrieb Troy Rollo:
ChangeLog: Implement DVD_ReadStructure
--- /dev/null 2006-02-03 18:20:42.451563144 +1100 +++ wine-git/include/ntddcdvd.h 2006-02-05 21:50:39.000000000 +1100
Please use "include/ddk/"
As a side note. Has anyone worked out how Windows creates the unique DVD ID? James
On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:28, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 22:01 +1100 schrieb Troy Rollo:
ChangeLog: Implement DVD_ReadStructure
--- /dev/null 2006-02-03 18:20:42.451563144 +1100 +++ wine-git/include/ntddcdvd.h 2006-02-05 21:50:39.000000000 +1100
Please use "include/ddk/"
I put it in the same place as ntddcdrm.h, ntddscsi.h and ntddstor.h - if it belongs somewhere else then it should be a separate patch that moves the lot. Regardless, I'm not revisiting patches anymore. If they get in, fine, but if not I'll just keep them on my branch - I work on more than one OSS project and I'm not sacrificing time on others to jump through hoops for Wine. -- Troy Rollo - wine(a)troy.rollo.name
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 08:23 +1100, Troy Rollo wrote:
Regardless, I'm not revisiting patches anymore. If they get in, fine, but if not I'll just keep them on my branch - I work on more than one OSS project and I'm not sacrificing time on others to jump through hoops for Wine.
Why to bother sending patches at all then if you are not planning to improve them into an acceptable state? -- Dmitry.
On Thursday 09 February 2006 08:38, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Why to bother sending patches at all then if you are not planning to improve them into an acceptable state?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I place even the slightest value on what you, Dmitry, consider to be an acceptable state. Now excuse me while I update my filters to take account of your new email address. -- Troy Rollo - wine(a)troy.rollo.name
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 08:48 +1100, Troy Rollo wrote:
Why to bother sending patches at all then if you are not planning to improve them into an acceptable state?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I place even the slightest value on what you, Dmitry, consider to be an acceptable state.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's me who accepts the code into the Wine source tree.
Now excuse me while I update my filters to take account of your new email address.
Not that I care too much about your habit to hide your head into the sand. -- Dmitry.
Troy Rollo wrote:
Regardless, I'm not revisiting patches anymore. If they get in, fine, but if not I'll just keep them on my branch - I work on more than one OSS project and I'm not sacrificing time on others to jump through hoops for Wine.
It will probably save you time in the long run to keep as much as you can merged with WineHQ. Two reasons: 1) Your patches will get tested more, and any bugs are more likely to be found and fixed. 2) You won't have to worry about merging them manually with WineHQ each time you update your tree. Certainly CodeWeavers have found that to be the case, but if you only have to maintain a small number of patches, maybe it will work out OK to let your tree diverge from WineHQ. Mike
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 05.02.2006, 22:01 +1100 schrieb Troy Rollo:
ChangeLog: Implement DVD_ReadStructure
--- /dev/null 2006-02-03 18:20:42.451563144 +1100 +++ wine-git/include/ntddcdvd.h 2006-02-05 21:50:39.000000000 +1100
Please use "include/ddk/"
Actually both the latest PSDK and the DDK put ntddcdrm.h, ntddscsi.h and ntddstor.h straight in 'include' and not in 'include/ddk'. So this patch is probably correct. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ La terre est une bêta...
Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> writes:
Actually both the latest PSDK and the DDK put ntddcdrm.h, ntddscsi.h and ntddstor.h straight in 'include' and not in 'include/ddk'. So this patch is probably correct.
There's no include/ddk on Windows, that's a Wine (and win32api) convention to separate SDK and DDK includes. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> writes:
Actually both the latest PSDK and the DDK put ntddcdrm.h, ntddscsi.h and ntddstor.h straight in 'include' and not in 'include/ddk'. So this patch is probably correct.
There's no include/ddk on Windows, that's a Wine (and win32api) convention to separate SDK and DDK includes.
Actually the Windows DDK (2000) stores its headers in a directory called 'inc', which itself has a subdirectory called 'ddk', thus making it 'inc/ddk'. Not quite the same but close. So I guess headers from 'inc/ddk' would end up in 'include/ddk/ddk' in Wine. Not that it's a problem. However, how do we decide whether a header should go into Wine's 'include/ddk'? Is it based whether Microsoft ships it with the PSDK or the DDK? Or should we base it purely on the content of the header? If the former then ntddcdrm.h, ntddscsi.h and ntddstor.h should be in 'include', if we follow the latest PSDK at least, but if the latter then they may belong to 'include/ddk'. -- Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> http://fgouget.free.fr/ If it stinks, it's chemistry. If it moves, it's biology. If it does not work, It's computer science.
Francois Gouget <fgouget(a)free.fr> writes:
So I guess headers from 'inc/ddk' would end up in 'include/ddk/ddk' in Wine. Not that it's a problem. However, how do we decide whether a header should go into Wine's 'include/ddk'? Is it based whether Microsoft ships it with the PSDK or the DDK? Or should we base it purely on the content of the header?
It's based on what Microsoft ships. If it's in the PSDK it should be in include; if it's only in the DDK it should be in include/ddk. This way a standard build will use only SDK headers, and if you want DDK headers you have to request them explicitly. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (7)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Detlef Riekenberg -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Francois Gouget -
James Courtier-Dutton -
Mike McCormack -
Troy Rollo