http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20296
oiaohm oiaohm@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oiaohm@gmail.com
--- Comment #34 from oiaohm oiaohm@gmail.com 2011-04-02 00:25:17 CDT --- (In reply to comment #33)
(In reply to comment #32)
The patch is a hack, it doesn't make sense to include it in a Wine release.
What, like this would be the first hack integrated in wine mainline? Haha :)
Seriously though, the real question is: does it break other applications. If not, I don't see why it couldn't be merged.
Serous. You don't know wine rules. No it would not be the first hack integrated into wine mainline. But it would be the first hack to get into mainline against the rules since the rules were formed. Please be aware this rules has been there for over 10 years.
This is not a functional stub. That is a permitted form of hack.
It is a operational altering hack. These have been found to be longterm major problem causing so are 100 percent classed as hacks never to be merged mainline. Since its crossing functionality that should not be related.
CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER should be implemented then the patch can be included.
Even if its ugly like duplicating CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER code base to perform CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER tasks. So that CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER and CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER are two independent code lines and that LOCAL_SERVER can keep on progressing until it has full functionality.
Basically the patch is way way too small and could get in the way of creating the future functionality. So its forbin in it current form.
Basically to quote Ghostbusters. "Don't cross the streams".
Also lot of the hacks against the rules have been in a slow process of being removed since the rules where placed.