http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2622
------- Additional Comments From saulius.krasuckas@elst.vtu.lt 2006-13-09 00:38 ------- I followed a discussion and agree this Wine bug should be closed as INVALID (it is VALID for FC5 RPM builder), but can I add some comments?
Joe, now that you know using compiled and packaged versions of Wine gives different results, you should try contacting package maintainer and seeing how FC boxes of both of you differs (in order to keep Fedora package world in a peace and harmony).
Maybe freetype or fontforge package versions differs inbetween? Of course, we expect you have compiled exactly Wine version 0.9.20 from a repository and not the latest (to test that;)
* joe@eshu.net wrote: | shouldn't the installer take care of the neccessary dll's?
Of course it should, but judging from a lots of Wine bugreports quite large part of them just aren't smart enough to provide those dll's. Installers (or makers of them) relies on a belief that dll's would already be in a place. This is fact for a lots of Windows setups but it isn't so for a Wine setups. One Window setup runs some tens of apps, while one Wine setup is used to run mostly 1, 2 or 3 apps at max, which mostly doesn't bring mfc42.dll. Such is my probabilistic guess ;)