wine-devel June 2006

wine-devel@winehq.org

174 participants
352 discussions

Compilation error using winegcc
by Vikas Gera 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Hello!! I am new user to Wine. I have downloaded Wine-0.9.15 sources on solaris box and tried to compile a simple "Hello World" program using WineLib. I am getting following error: winegcc: -Wl,-G,-B,symbolic failed. *** Error code 2 make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `helloworld.so' Can anybody guide me as to what went wrong? I have following environment setup Solaris 10, gcc, wine sources 0.9.15 built (compiled) using patch released on 2006/05/22 (http://www.blastwave.org/wine). regards, Vikas Gera

1 0

Re: mshtml 8: Added beginning IDM_BROWSEMODE implementation.
by Alexandre Julliard 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

This one breaks the tests: ../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M mshtml.dll -T ../../.. -p mshtml_test.exe.so htmldoc.c && touch htmldoc.ok htmldoc.c:1703: Test failed: expected Invoke_AMBIENT_USERMODE htmldoc.c:1703: Test failed: expected Invoke_AMBIENT_USERMODE htmldoc.c:1703: Test failed: expected Invoke_AMBIENT_USERMODE htmldoc.c:1703: Test failed: expected Invoke_AMBIENT_USERMODE -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: riched20: (updated) EM_GETLINE implementation and test
by Alexandre Julliard 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Krzysztof Foltman <wdev(a)foltman.com> writes: > This is the EM_GETLINE patch from Thomas Kho, updated to current git > and with L"" replaced by proper WCHAR array. There are many more problems with that patch. For instance, it shouldn't call IsWindowUnicode all the time, once is enough. Also casting pointers to int is a bad idea (and not needed), it should use sizeof(WCHAR) instead of hardcoding 2, and preferably use proper data types instead of the nBPC hack. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org

1 0

Re: winspool.drv: Write-strings warnings fix
by Mike McCormack 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Andrew Talbot wrote: > + static CHAR dtype[] = "RAW", > + processor[] = "WinPrint", These strings should really be const. IMO, a better fix would be to add a cast to cast them back to (char*) than to change their storage class. Mike

2 1

Very large files
by John Willis 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Howdy, I have a large VS 6.0 C++ program and I'm running it under WINE under Redhat Linux. Everything works fine, but it doesn't handle file sizes greater than 4gb like it can running directly under Windows XP. I've tweaked everything that I can find that seems to deal with file sizes. Is there a problem with WINE itself handling very large file sizes? Thanks in advance, John

4 3

Re: [AppDB] - protect against sql injection in select, update and delete statements
by Tony Lambregts 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Chris Morgan wrote: > On Sunday 25 June 2006 10:00 pm, Tony Lambregts wrote: >> Chris Morgan wrote: >>> Testing once beats testing over and over and over again IMO. >> Thats why you want to make the patches small. Small patches are easy to >> review, test and prove the correctness of. Big patches are difficult to >> test and one bug rejects the whole thing, so you have to start all over >> again. >> >>> I suspect that if your testing looks good and mine does as well then we >>> should be ready to go. >> I will NOT be able to test a big patch again for a while, nor am I really >> willing to. I took quite a while out of my weekend to do the testing >> because I don't want a bad patch going into production again. We have had >> enough bad feelings going on over this that it was easier for me to do the >> testing then to continue arguing with you. I really have a limit though and >> I ask you politely to meet me half way by breaking it up. >> >>> I'll fix up moving test results, that should be an easy one, and do >>> another once over of the patch before comitting it. >>> I'm pretty confident that it is all set, I've tested submitting notes, >>> comments, applications, distributions etc here and it looks good. >> I do not support that idea. If you break the patch up into smaller chunks >> then Those can be tested and hopfully put in. >> >> -- >> >> Tony Lambregts > > I'll break up the patch if you'll start submitting patches that implement > automated testing. > > Otherwise our testing is always going to have poor coverage and is going to be > a waste of time. It might be more difficult to implement automated testing > but it will improve the codebase by allowing us to test it quickly and > reproducably. > > Chris > > Oh for crying out loud. Go ahead and automate if you know how to. If you or someone else can show me how I am willing to work on it too, I an not opposed to automating all of the testing if that is possible. In the mean time am against these large patches that are difficult to test because the are so large. -- Tony Lambregts

2 2

Re: [AppDB] - protect against sql injection in select, update and delete statements
by Tony Lambregts 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

Chris Morgan wrote: > Testing once beats testing over and over and over again IMO. Thats why you want to make the patches small. Small patches are easy to review, test and prove the correctness of. Big patches are difficult to test and one bug rejects the whole thing, so you have to start all over again. > I suspect that if your testing looks good and mine does as well then we > should be ready to go. I will NOT be able to test a big patch again for a while, nor am I really willing to. I took quite a while out of my weekend to do the testing because I don't want a bad patch going into production again. We have had enough bad feelings going on over this that it was easier for me to do the testing then to continue arguing with you. I really have a limit though and I ask you politely to meet me half way by breaking it up. > > I'll fix up moving test results, that should be an easy one, and do > another once over of the patch before comitting it. > I'm pretty confident that it is all set, I've tested submitting notes, comments, > applications, distributions etc here and it looks good. > I do not support that idea. If you break the patch up into smaller chunks then Those can be tested and hopfully put in. -- Tony Lambregts

2 1

Re: [AppDb] [3/3] Comments handling cleanup
by Chris Morgan 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

The makeSafe() changes for filtering data and the query_parameters() changes for sql injection parameters are related but independent changes. It seems like query_parameters() is a better fix than putting inline sprintf()s and quote_safe_sql() calls. query_parameters() encapsulates the calls to whatever 'escape' function that we choose. query_parameters() also uses the syntax that pear db uses for place holders, ?, ~ and &. Chris On 6/25/06, Jonathan Ernst <jonathan(a)ernstfamily.ch> wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a cleaned up version of the comments handling that better fixes > (imho) all problems related to sql and html injection (it requires the previous patches to be applied). > > It is based on php manual's best practices for avoiding injection. > > I'd be very glad if we'll use such mechanism for the rest of the > queries and get rid of compile_whatever, makeSafe & co. > > Changelog: > - avoid sql/html injection in the comments > > Files changed: > - addcomment.php > - deletecomment.php > - include/comment.php > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQBEnt7XIW5mR/h6b38RAqtqAKCw7qX+8JTVDI0VvvHSfZTbeGYJOQCglZtg > gRVPintjJeZ1yhupSF5V+RE= > =6bPd > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > >

1 0

[AppDb] stuff thats broken
by Tony Lambregts 26 Jun '06

26 Jun '06

So I was testing Chris's "query_parameters" patch and I found the following things broken with current CVS. This note is mostly to archive the issues I found than anything else. Most of these are minor problems but they should be fixed. If you want to have a go at fixing any of the issues feel free to do so. 1.) When I go to enter a new distribution in the testing data (new application, new version or new testing data) I get the following error We found the following errors: * Please enter a distribution. Please correct them. This is probably due to the makesafe() patch. I have no idea how long these next 3 have not worked. 2.) I also cannot add a new category under the "Main" category This is minor but we should fix it 3.) Editing a category is broken all fields are blank 4.) deleting a category is broken. I get this error at least *Database Error!* Query: DELETE FROM appCategory WHERE catId = LIMIT 1 You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'LIMIT 1' at line 3 5.) If you add a hyperlink in a note it is broken with makesafe() turned on. 6.) Voting is broken (I don't care really) the whole thing is kind meaningless right now anyway. but that is another subject. -- Tony Lambregts

3 4

SecuRom investigation
by Martin Owen 25 Jun '06

25 Jun '06

Hello all, I have been investigating getting rid of a terminal anoyancy for wine game users, SecuRom security. I don't believe it is good enough to crack the games as this makes us out to look like criminals rather than trying to get legitimate games to work. I have sent a query to sony, asking if they will help with providing information, but I'm not hopeful of a positive response. I found an interesting tool here: http://www.gameburnworld.com/securompatches.htm which if we could get our hands on the source code would at least give us more information about how this security works and may even allow us to work around it perminently with in wine. Best Regards, Martin Owens

4 4

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
36
Older →

Jump to page:

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 June 2006