Re: Anything wrong with this patch?
2009/1/24 Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com>:
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com>:
(Damnit, gmail interface) Pipermail shows as empty, here.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067564.html Any comment on this one? Related to bug 15616.
Looks like http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067564.html has a brief description that says "See bug 15616", but the previous mail http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067565.html has the actual patch.
Jérôme, be more careful when submitting patches! :)
strange... the first one is the original message, the second one looks like the attachment... Maybe something wrong with thunderbird. I'll resend if needed.
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too. Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com>:
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com>:
(Damnit, gmail interface) Pipermail shows as empty, here.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067564.html Any comment on this one? Related to bug 15616.
Looks like http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067564.html has a brief description that says "See bug 15616", but the previous mail http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067565.html has the actual patch.
Jérôme, be more careful when submitting patches! :)
strange... the first one is the original message, the second one looks like the attachment... Maybe something wrong with thunderbird. I'll resend if needed.
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected? Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com>:
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh(a)gmail.com>:
(Damnit, gmail interface) Pipermail shows as empty, here.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067564.html Any comment on this one? Related to bug 15616.
Looks like http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067564.html has a brief description that says "See bug 15616", but the previous mail http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/067565.html has the actual patch.
Jérôme, be more careful when submitting patches! :)
strange... the first one is the original message, the second one looks like the attachment... Maybe something wrong with thunderbird. I'll resend if needed.
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected?
Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask. Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand. -- -Austin
2009/1/24 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected?
Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
Is it really about "supporting"? As AJ points out in his comment, nothing stops you from writing in the .acm file, which is almost certainly faster than scrolling through the whole list to find it anyway. Isn't the list of DLLs in winecfg long enough already?
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected?
Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
Is it really about "supporting"? As AJ points out in his comment, nothing stops you from writing in the .acm file, which is almost certainly faster than scrolling through the whole list to find it anyway.
Isn't the list of DLLs in winecfg long enough already?
I like to type the beginning of a dll, and just press <tab> to get its full name. It is only a matter of comfort. :)
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected?
Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
Is it really about "supporting"? As AJ points out in his comment, nothing stops you from writing in the .acm file, which is almost certainly faster than scrolling through the whole list to find it anyway.
Isn't the list of DLLs in winecfg long enough already?
I like to type the beginning of a dll, and just press <tab> to get its full name. It is only a matter of comfort. :)
That, and developers are probably aren't using this much anyway. Most of us avoid native dlls, but when using them A) use winetricks or B) use WINEDLLOVERRIDES. Users would find it more convenient, and arguably, they should be able to. I don't see any reason we shouldn't allow .acm's. Sys/drv probably not. Exe, debatable. -- -Austin
Austin English a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
2009/1/24 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ben Klein a écrit :
I just looked at bug 15616. Maybe you should look at it too.
Also, please hit "Reply to all" so your message gets sent to the mailing list too :)
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected?
Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
Is it really about "supporting"? As AJ points out in his comment, nothing stops you from writing in the .acm file, which is almost certainly faster than scrolling through the whole list to find it anyway.
Isn't the list of DLLs in winecfg long enough already?
I like to type the beginning of a dll, and just press <tab> to get its full name. It is only a matter of comfort. :)
That, and developers are probably aren't using this much anyway. Most of us avoid native dlls, but when using them A) use winetricks or B) use WINEDLLOVERRIDES.
Users would find it more convenient, and arguably, they should be able to. I don't see any reason we shouldn't allow .acm's. Sys/drv probably not. Exe, debatable.
I resent the patch quite some time ago, but it's still unaccepted... http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-January/068325.html
Austin English a écrit :
Of course... Austin English already noticed my patch. Austin, any idea why it was rejected?
Sorry for the "reply to all", I forgot it this time...
I don't know. I only noticed the empty patch. AJ would be the one to ask.
Off hand though, I'd say if you're going to add support for .acm, you should also allow for other native files. iexplore.exe is one candidate, but probably controversial. There are other file extension types missing, I'm sure, though not sure which types off hand.
Yes... potential candidate are acm, sys, drv, vxd and exe. I guess that vxd, drv and sys are to be avoided there. Some exe, such as regedit, could be replaced, but I'm not sure which one are truly safe there.
participants (3)
-
Austin English -
Ben Klein -
Jérôme Gardou