[Bug 14334] WordPerfect Office 2002: Unable to Install

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14334

Forester  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #19345|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |

--- Comment #26 from Forester   2009-02-15 14:32:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=19480)
 --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=19480)
Analysis 14/02/2009 Wine 1.1.15

Attached is another analysis.  Hopefully a little more cogent than the last.

Thanks for the suggestions on how to trace API calls under WindowsTM.  I got
nothing at all out of apisys and logger.exe only traced calls from advapi32,
not calls to advapi32.  I was, however, able to confirm that WindowsTM calls
GetNamedSecurityInfoExA() by running the installer under the MS debugger and
using break points.

That (and Juan's changes) renders resubmission of any patches for
LookupAccountName() moot until and unless there is an n&s implementation of
GetNamedSecurityInfoExA().

I could submit a patch containing a stub implementation of
GetNamedSecurityInfoExA() again and maybe we could prevail upon Alexandre to
give us his reasons for why this it is not acceptable.

I expect his reasoning would run as follows:  your application checks for the
existence of this routine and fails because it isn't there.  How do we know
there are not other applications that make the same check and still install ? 
Your application installs with this stub even though the stub returns an error.
 How can we know that this stub will not stop those other applications from
installing ?

We can not know without trying.  The only way to reduce risk is to try to
implement GetNamedSecurityInfoExA() fully even though we have no evidence that
this would be a productive use of time and resources.  The questions I would
ask Alexandre is a) Does he think GetNamedSecurityInfoExA() can be implemented
in terms of what already exists or would it involve something essentially new
being added to Wine ?  b) Does he think GetNamedSecurityInfoExA() can be
implemented entirely client side or would it require messing around with server
internals ?

And last, but not least, no, I don't know of anyone else who has used this stub
to install this application.

Anyway, one patch containing a stub implementation of GetNamedSecurityInfoExA()
ready for submission.  Just give the word.