wine-devel April 2004

wine-devel@winehq.org

138 participants
323 discussions

Start a nNew thread

[Fwd: DSD_CreateSecondaryBuffer]
by Robert Reif 08 Apr '04

08 Apr '04

sorry, wrong reply button again.

1 0

DSD_CreateSecondaryBuffer
by Daniel Skorka 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

Hi, said function is a stub in Wine-20040309. Is anyone working on implementing it? If not, any pointers on doing so, especially on how this fuction differs from DSD_CreatePrimaryBuffer? Thanks, Daniel Skorka

1 0

Regression
by Ivan Leo Murray-Smith 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

This patch http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-cvs/2004/03/0434.html breaks the decompression system used by lots of microsoft software, a screenshot is attached. This breaks the installer of the word 97 viewer, and probably of all office viewers, and it may affect dcom and the installer of other Windows components or Microsoft software. This should be fixed before the next release. The CVS regression testing was done with the word viewer available at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9bbb9e60-e4f3-436d… Ivan.

2 1

Re: Documentation: Clarified need for conformance tests.
by Francois Gouget 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Michael Jacobsen wrote: > Hi there. This is my first go at submitting a patch. Let's see if it works. It needs a small s/avalible/available/ and it would be nice to follow the 2-space indentation used in the rest of the doc. Besides that it looks good. Thanks for your contribution. -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Any sufficiently advanced Operating System is indistinguishable from Linux

1 0

article
by Pouech Eric DMI AEI CAEN 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

read on from lwn.net http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-wine/?ca=dgr-lnxw04Fi…

1 0

Virus on wine-patches@winehq.org
by Rolf Kalbermatter 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

Could someone please remove the following postings from the archive as they contain viruses? http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2004/04/0082.html http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2004/04/0084.html Rolf Kalbermatter

3 2

Re: development speed
by Ivan Leo Murray-Smith 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

> The website stats are interesting too: Are these available somewhere? Ivan.

2 1

arch tip #1
by Mike Hearn 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

At Dimis request, I've added a new script to the root of the gateway tree. The genpatch program takes a series of patch ids as parameters and can generate and send an email to wine-patches with the combined diff of all the given commits. For example: let's say you are working on a feature. You do 3 commits, to keep the changes physically separate, however you decide the commits are too fine grained to submit all at once, so you want to submit them together. Genpatch makes that easy. Say you commit patch-4, patch-5 and patch-6: ./genpatch -m 4 5 6 will compute the combined differential of all those commits, take the commit log and summary of the first and generate an email from them. The patch will include and new files that were added. Have fun! thanks -mike

1 0

Re: wine/ include/config.h.in dlls/x11drv/xrandr.c ...
by Mike Hearn 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:57:36 -0500, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Log message: > Mike McCormack <mike(a)codeweavers.com> > Load the XRandR extension dynamically (with help from Alex Pasadyn). Are we sure this is a good idea? Dynamic version of the X extension libraries are not available on every distro, as traditionally XFree has shipped them statically. I'm not even sure they have stable interfaces. It seems wiser to just statically link libXrandr, seeing that it's only 7.7k

1 0

Window management thoughts
by Mike Hearn 07 Apr '04

07 Apr '04

So, me and Mike have been discussing some ideas for window management in Wine. Currently it hasn't turned into code, but I thought I'd write up what our thoughts were so others could comment and maybe be inspired to write patches. The problem: Currently Wine decides whether to make a window managed or not based on a series of heuristics, in is_window_toplevel in dlls/x11drv/window.c Unfortunately these heuristics are frequently wrong, as they have only limited information to work with (window styles, mostly). In CrossOver, is_window_toplevel is easily the most hacked function in the entire codebase. This manifests itself in a variety of ways: * Windows are marked unmanaged when they shouldn't be. For instance, see WinAmp, Trillian, the Counter-Strike CD Key screen etc: there are tons of examples of this problem. This at best means the window is "nailed" to the screen, at worst it makes the program unusable. * The classic "my game starts but I can't type" problem where keyboard input goes to the terminal instead of the window, due to the lack of focus management in unmanaged windows. * Some programs display splash screens and then pop up errors or question dialogs underneath them. Unmanaged windows are always-on-top -> you cannot get to the underlying managed window and the app appears to hang. * Fullscreen windows are really hard to do properly because they must be managed to work correctly in KDE/GNOME. We currently make certain windows unmanaged typically because we need to control their position or rendering with a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately some X window managers ignore positioning hints, even when we ask them not to. There is no way to make things like menus and tooltips work correctly with these WMs, so we take the window out of the usual window management mechanism entirely. Unfortunately due to the design of the win32 API there is no simple way to tell the difference between a large menu and the Trillian main window. We could mark our own menus specially to make them unmanaged and have everything else be managed, but we then run into problems with programs that draw their own menus and tooltips, of which there are a truly shocking number. So what is a possible solution? Well, one way forward is to implement another mode, in which Wine makes all windows managed and uses a variety of WM hints to get the desired behaviour. For instance, the PPosition flag asks the WM to place the window where the application requests it to. Some WMs respect this, others do not, in yet others it's a toggleable option. For people with WMs that meet the requirements of Wine all windows could be made managed, and for people that don't use such WMs the old way can still be used. IIRC it's possible to ask the WM for identification which means this setting could be largely autodetected by having blacklists of WMs to use the old mode for (or vice-versa). Unfortunately there's no way to know how well this approach would work, or even if it would work at all, short of trying it. thanks -mike

5 6

← Newer
1
...
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
...
33
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel April 2004