http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
Summary: 'wrong version of assembly manifest', ok, but which is the right one? Product: Wine Version: 1.1.11 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ntdll AssignedTo: wine-bugs@winehq.org ReportedBy: gotterdammerung@web.de
Created an attachment (id=19006) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=19006) patch to output mismatching assembly manifest version numbers
If you got the wrong version of 'vc redistributable', you get no clue what might be the right one:
fixme:actctx:parse_assembly_elem wrong version for assembly manifest fixme:actctx:parse_manifest_buffer failed to parse manifest L"C:\Program Files\foo\Microsoft.VC80.CRT\Microsoft.VC80.CRT.manifest" fixme:actctx:parse_depend_manifests Could not find dependent assembly L"Microsoft.VC80.CRT" err:module:import_dll Library MSVCR90.dll (which is needed by L"C:\Program Files\foo\bar.exe") not found
The attached patch changes this to something like that:
fixme:actctx:parse_assembly_elem wrong version for assembly manifest: expected '8.0.50727.762', got '8.0.50608.0' fixme:actctx:parse_manifest_buffer failed to parse manifest L"C:\Program Files\foo\Microsoft.VC80.CRT\Microsoft.VC80.CRT.manifest" fixme:actctx:parse_depend_manifests Could not find dependent assembly L"Microsoft.VC80.CRT" err:module:import_dll Library MSVCR90.dll (which is needed by L"C:\Program Files\foo\bar.exe") not found
So you can happily try, try again with the right version.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #19006|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #1 from John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de 2009-01-26 15:34:12 --- Created an attachment (id=19010) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=19010) patch to output mismatching assembly manifest version numbers
typo in that other one
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #19010|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #2 from John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de 2009-01-26 15:36:01 --- Created an attachment (id=19011) --> (http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=19011) patch to output mismatching assembly manifest version numbers
wrong diff direction in that other one... i think i got it now ;)
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
--- Comment #3 from Juan Lang juan_lang@yahoo.com 2009-01-26 16:03:48 --- Try sending to wine-patches, patches aren't picked up from here. Send with your real name, please, anonymous patches are not allowed.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
Vitaliy Margolen vitaliy@kievinfo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |enhancement OS/Version|All |other Platform|All |Other
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |patch
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
--- Comment #4 from Rico kgbricola@web.de 2009-01-27 14:49:34 --- You could also have a look at this patch http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=9618 from bug 9717 . It probably needs a test case to verify the behaviour (I don't know if it is correct).
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
--- Comment #5 from John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de 2009-01-27 17:14:02 --- (In reply to comment #4)
You could also have a look at this patch http://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=9618116 from bug 9717117 . It probably needs a test case to verify the behaviour (I don't know if it is correct).
I thought about this behaviour (to include the 'fix' from bug 9717117): inform the user if the version does not match, but only fail on major.minor mismatch, ignoring build.revision.
But then i saw how _shared_ manifest versions are handled: fail only on lower build or, with equal build on lower revision. That's a bit nicer, i think.
It probably needs a test case to verify the behaviour (I don't know if it is correct).
Agreed. I don't think it is correct. Depends on what modifications are allowed beween builds & revisions. But if Gothic3 runs with it, it can't be that wrong. ;)
The question is: if we handle versions too loosely, where and when do we fail? IMHO it is best to be strict: Fail fast and let the user get the right version. Thats what the guys that tried Gothic3 would have done, if they only knew which one was the right version. To ignore build.revision looks to me like an ugly hack ( matching the original Gothic3 development :-> ).
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
--- Comment #6 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com 2009-07-30 12:18:06 --- Is this still an issue in current (1.1.26 or newer) wine?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #7 from John Doe gotterdammerung@web.de 2009-07-31 02:06:06 ---
From the look of the code, it seems fixed in 1.1.26. I've got no testcase here.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17145
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED
--- Comment #8 from Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org 2009-08-07 12:38:39 --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.1.27.
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org