http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Summary: Spiceworks will not install due to missing netstat.exe Product: Wine Version: 1.1.44 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: -unknown AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: hytek3000@yahoo.com
Created an attachment (id=27961) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=27961) Trace for Spiceworks Installation Failure
The newer versions of Spiceworks checks for netstat.exe during installation. This causes the installer to abort.
Attached is the trace using latest git wine: wine-1.1.44-143-g2ba53f4
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|-unknown |programs Severity|blocker |normal
--- Comment #1 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2010-05-14 14:18:58 --- Not a blocker. Does this program have a demo?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Juan Lang juan_lang@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |download, regression Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW URL| |http://download.spiceworks. | |com/Spiceworks.exe Component|programs |-unknown Summary|Spiceworks will not install |Spiceworks crashes during |due to missing netstat.exe |install Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Juan Lang juan_lang@yahoo.com 2010-05-14 18:19:20 --- I tried this with Wine 1.1.43-8-g049290b, and it installs, though with the same error message in the console: wine: cannot find L"C:\windows\system32\netstat.exe"
Using 1.1.44 it crashes, and the backtrace has LoadImageA/W in it. I think the netstat error is unrelated. Please perform a regression test.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dank@kegel.com
--- Comment #3 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2010-05-14 22:00:43 --- I think this is a dup of bug 12838.
See also bug 22685 for a later problem.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
--- Comment #4 from Juan Lang juan_lang@yahoo.com 2010-05-15 19:04:39 --- I'd be surprised if it were a dup of bug 12838, since that was present as far back as 1.1.5, and this appears to be a regression between 1.1.43 and 1.1.44.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Wylda wylda@volny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wylda@volny.cz
--- Comment #5 from Wylda wylda@volny.cz 2010-05-16 02:52:36 ---
1. Confirming
2. I did a regression test between 1.1.43 and 1.1.44:
commit 94a3c0987e2765a4eed0a6dcba37dc45ca3d7dbf Author: Wolfram Sang wolfram@the-dreams.de Date: Mon Apr 26 01:13:37 2010 +0200
user32: Ignore reserved bytes in BMP fileheader.
:040000 040000 544a127a22a1e88870b23179c1c02a4e38a7edf2 8e82fa5e8ab703f19627808048b961c25a762046 M dlls
3. No other bug report suffers from this commit.
4. Revert of this patch after git checkout makes that problem go away.
5. Adding author of this patch to CC.
--private keyword: bisected
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Wylda wylda@volny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wolfram@the-dreams.de
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
--- Comment #6 from Wolfram Sang wolfram@the-dreams.de 2010-05-16 07:36:44 --- Thanks for CC.
Well, the BMP which causes the fault looks like this:
<pre> 00000000 42 4d b0 e1 0d 0a 5b 53 65 74 74 69 6e 67 73 5d |BM....[Settings]| 00000010 0d 0a 52 54 4c 3d 30 0d 0a |..RTL=0..| </pre>
So, it is a pretty broken BMP. The old check I removed caused it not to load in earlier versions. However, the testcase I modified showed that Windows does really not care about the reserved fields. So, it looks to me we need some other measures to discard this BMP. Will have a look.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Installer
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2010-05-17 11:15:28 --- Looks like Wolfram came through; fixed by http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-cvs/2010-May/067018.html
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2010-05-21 14:40:19 --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.2-rc1.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
--- Comment #9 from Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com 2010-07-14 09:29:43 --- Or not fixed after all? See possible dup bug 23651.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
--- Comment #10 from Uriah hytek3000@yahoo.com 2010-07-14 10:50:38 --- (In reply to comment #9)
Or not fixed after all? See possible dup bug 23651.
This was fixed at one point.
through my regression testing so far for bug 23651 (which I will post my results there when done)
1.2-rc1 has a working installation for this app. It appears to have regressed again somewhere in the 1.2 rc's.
I will post my results in 23651 though, unless the mod god's see otherwise.
Thanks.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22694
Wylda wylda@volny.cz changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regression SHA1| |94a3c0987e2765a4eed0a6dcba3 | |7dc45ca3d7dbf
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org