wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

4 participants
84401 discussions

RMS, Univerial Themes, Slashdot, and Wine
by Tim R. 20 Feb '02

20 Feb '02

Hi, This post, http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-February/msg00015.html to some GNOME mailing list got /.ed recently. Quoting from the post: >It might also be useful to organize a specific joint project, >something that would improve the coherence of a GNU/Linux system >which uses parts of both GNOME and KDE. The idea that occurred to me >was to work on unifying theme definitions, so that a user can define >a theme just once and have it work with both GNOME and KDE. Perhaps >others will have a better suggestion. I would love to see something like this happen. However, IMHO, I think something like this should be more than just KDE and GNOME. I would like to see something like that as a more or less Linux (and BSD, etc), or X11 standard. It seems to me that Wine could benifit from something like this. Basicly, Wine is just a Unix/X11 toolkit that happens to have the same API as MS Windows and includes a binary loader right? Or am I completely off base here? Anyway, GNOME programs tend to look and feel like GNOME programs, KDE programs tend to look and feel like KDE programs, and Wine programs tend to look and feel like Windows programs. So could something like this work for Wine? Could Wine programs inherit their look and feel from some kind of universal theme? That would surely help the Windows programs integrate into the X desktop. So I guess I'm asking, would this work for Wine, and if so, is anyone interested in doing it? If the first answer is yes but the second is no, could anyone provide me with some pointers for getting involved with doing some a project myself? (Both the work on Wine, and on GNOME/Gtk/KDE/Qt/etc.) Also some of the replies to RMS's post suggested this was an itch none of the GNOME people felt like scratching, because none of them used KDE programs. I thought perhaps the Wine people would feel more like scratching this itch, because most of you probably use Wine programs along side of atleast either KDE or GNOME applications, if not both. Sorry if this has been a bit off topic, or if I don't really know what I'm talking about. --Tim Ringenbach

1 0

Bye
by Gerard Patel 20 Feb '02

20 Feb '02

Ring down the curtains, the farce is over ;-) I will unsubscribe from wine lists in a few days. If anyone of the contributors has a problem with the few lines of code I wrote for Wine, they should not hesitate to send me a mail in my personal inbox, I'll try to understand what I was trying to do and if I succeed I'll explain :-) And if among the seven who voted against the changes there are enough people aventurous (I did not participate to the 'vote'), I'd be interested to hear from them and discuss a contribution to a new project under a x11 like license. As wine-license seems to be a continuation of the gpl/bsd flamewar :-//, I'd prefer to talk about a x11 project elsewhere... Thanks to all on this list who helped me. Good luck to the Wine guys for their 1.0 version. Gerard PS : And ah, well, as a parting note for Alexandre Julliard : there is a problem with your patch made on Revision 1.22 / (download) - [select for diffs] , Fri Sep 14 00:24:40 2001 UTC (5 months ago) by julliard Branch: MAIN Changes since 1.21: +8 -13 lines Diff to previous 1.21 Make sure that HWND comparisons are always done with full 32-bit handles. You included this (hardly related) change in dlls/x11drv/window.c, line 524: while (prev && !(GetWindowLongW( prev, GWL_STYLE ) & WS_VISIBLE)) prev = GetWindow( prev, GW_HWNDPREV ); This is triggering a regression in one of my test apps, webferret (www.webferret.com). The option window has its tabs covering each other. I can work around with this patch : --- winpos.c.orig Tue Dec 18 02:27:43 2001 +++ winpos.c Thu Jan 10 18:08:16 2002 @@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ if (get_whole_window(wndPtr)) /* don't do anything if X window not created yet */ { Display *display = thread_display(); - + int zorder = !(winpos->flags & SWP_NOZORDER); if (!(winpos->flags & SWP_SHOWWINDOW) && (winpos->flags & SWP_HIDEWINDOW)) { /* clear the update region */ @@ -895,10 +895,11 @@ TRACE( "unmapping zero size win %x\n", winpos->hwnd ); TSXUnmapWindow( display, get_whole_window(wndPtr) ); } + else if (winpos->flags & SWP_SHOWWINDOW) zorder = TRUE; wine_tsx11_lock(); if (bChangePos) - X11DRV_sync_whole_window_position( display, wndPtr, !(winpos->flags & SWP_NOZORDER) ); + X11DRV_sync_whole_window_position( display, wndPtr, zorder); else { struct x11drv_win_data *data = wndPtr->pDriverData;ü as far as I can understand your code and what the app is doing, your new code updates the ordering of the X window but there is a case missing when child windows are shown using for instance ShowWindow. But of course you'll have a better patch :-)

4 3

RE: License change vote results
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

> Here is the summary of the votes I received in answer to the request > to switch to a copyleft-style license: > > Agree Disagree Indifferent > > All votes: 76 (70%) 15 (14%) 17 (16%) > > Contributors: 39 (66%) 7 (12%) 13 (22%) > > Contrib. weighted: 59 (64%) 13 (14%) 20 (22%) > > The first line counts all the votes I received. The second line counts > the votes of all people/companies who contributed some code to the > project. The last line counts all contributors again but with each > being given 1, 2, or 3 votes depending on the importance of his > contributions (this evaluation is obviously a bit subjective, but I > think the overall trend is clear). Intresting to note is that contributors that disagree are on average ranked higher (almost 2) but the contributors that agree are ranked lower (about 1.5). This means that people that has more effort to protect are less willing to do so. Very intresting. The only reasonably conclusion for this that I can think of is that people with more to protect have thought more on the drawbacks on copyleft licenses (especially the LGPL) than people with less to protect. > The obvious result of this vote is that my previous conclusion was > wrong: there is clearly widespread support in the community for a > copyleft-style license. For some copyleft-style license perhaps. I'm not entirely against copyleft-style licenses either even if I voted disagree. However don't be so sure that all that voted for it really wants a license like the LGPL that prevent (at least according to your interpretation) using for example proprietary libraries to implement some functionalility. Or for that matter prevents Transgaming to add copy protection that they can't release openly because of a NDA. Calling proprietary libraries is something that I have been trying to explain is not just something "evil" companies out to earn a profit do, but also quite reasonably people just trying to help themselves or some friends to run applications under Wine. Is it really morally or ethically right to prevent that? I also asked how that is compatible with freedom 3 of the Free Software defintion: "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." > With 2 out of 3 contributors in favor of the > switch, and less than 15% opposed to it, it's clear that we are going > to proceed with the change. > > We now have to decide the implementation details, like the exact > license used, whether to require copyright assignments, etc. I think the first thing me need to do is to properly discuss what we want to accieve with the license and even more importantly what we think is acceptable to sacrifice. Then we must vote on what is important to prevent and what is important to avoid preventing. Especially we must vote on for example whether preventing Transgamings business model is reasonable and similar specific cases. After we have done that we can see if any existing license fits something that the majority agrees on or whether it is appropriete design a license of our own that does. I'm not at all sure that the LGPL is a good alternative at least not without properly clarify what paragraph 2d means as well as making certain that the majority of contributors really wants a license that means whatever paragraph 2d means. Another thing. It is not nessary to have the whole of wine under the same license. For example the header files (wine/include/*.h) might be appropriate to have under the current license or even under public domain to facillitate sharing with other projects. > My > suggestion is that we create a separate mailing list to discuss that, > to avoid drowning wine-devel under yet another license flame war. Agreed. I have subscribed to it and are ready to continue the debate there.

3 2

languages for wine tests
by Andriy Palamarchuk 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Are we going to use other languages than Perl and C for tests creation? I created a small shell test script to test other shell scripts, which are part of Wine (namely regapi scripts). It is easy to rewrite the test script in Perl. Thanks, Andriy Palamarchuk __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: License change vote results
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

> > For some copyleft-style license perhaps. I'm not entirely against > > copyleft-style licenses either even if I voted disagree. > > > However don't be so sure that all that voted for it really wants > > a license like the LGPL that prevent (at least according to your > > interpretation) using for example proprietary libraries to > > implement some functionalility. > > This is a spurious argument. You tell us that you voted that you > disagree, then ask us to not assume that those who voted in > favor agree > with the LGPL -- but provide no evidence to the contrary? The evidence is that the question didn't ask the whether the voters agreed with the LGPL it asked whether they thought copyleft was good. No bait and switch tactics thank you very much. Copyleft doesn't imply that everything it uses or in the case of GPL even what uses it should be copyleft only whatever is derived from it. A proprietary library that is called from a copylefted application is obviously not derived from it. Yet the LGPL under some interpretations prevent this. So the LGPL goes further than the definition of copyleft so the question whether supporters of copyleft support the LGPL is quite valid. > In any case, the precise license chosen is an issue yet to be > hashed out; > and it seems the wine-license mailing list is the place to do that. True. But I don't think all intrested have signed up yet. I will continue cross-posting a while yet. > > Or for that matter prevents Transgaming to add copy > protection that they > > can't release openly because of a NDA. > > I'm afraid Transgaming gets no sympathy from me if a future > Wine license > prevents them from working on copy protection functionality. > The DMCA is > fundamentally broken; technological mechanisms to prevent copying are > fundamentally broken because there can be no protection for fair use > rights; and any company that uses such copy protection > mechanisms should > be thoroughly boycotted. While I don't condemn TransGaming > for trying to > support copy-protection mechanisms in Wine -- corporations are by > definition amoral -- The DMCA might be (and is IMHO) fundamently broken but NDA:s are not. The copy protection that Transgaming has implemented is just an exemple of things that might come under a NDA. I can imagine 3D accelerators and a lot of other things that might fall under NDA:s. Note that some NDA might only be temporary before a product is released. Surely it would be nice to have Wine working on the release day. > I also won't shed any tears if this particular > business model falls by the wayside. No business model can exists that requires NDA:s if disclosure of source is mandated. If it could be hidden in a external library everthing would be OK, but alas the LGPL doesn't allow that under Alexandre's interpretation.

2 1

Re:GetStdHandle Problem
by Ignasi Villagrasa 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Here is the .spec I'm using: name mcwine type win32 mode cuiexe init main I compile it using winebuild -fPIC -o mcwine.c -spec mcwine.spec It generates a mcwine.c file, that I include in my makefile. I add several wine libraries and create the executable without problems. When trying to execute, I get the following message: wine client error:(nil): sendmsg: Descriptor de fichero err¾neo (In spanish, error in file handle) If I run the program using gdb, I see the following: (gdb) r Starting program: /usr/client/mcc_gnu/cmpm/cmpmgnu /B100 /Oaaaa-1.ovl Breakpoint 1, McConsole::Inicializar (this=0x80aa528) at /usr/comun/src/mc_vis32.cpp:429 429 conhanout = GetStdHandle(STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE); 1: conhanin = 0 (gdb) n 430 conhanin = GetStdHandle(STD_INPUT_HANDLE); 1: conhanin = 0 (gdb) n 431 FlushConsoleInputBuffer(conhanin); 1: conhanin = 0 (gdb) n wine client error:(nil): sendmsg: Descriptor de fichero err¾neo Program exited with code 01. (gdb) So I know the problem comes from GetStdHandle, but I don't know why, because the program links properly, and I suppose GetStdHandle, a basic Win32 function, should work. Any hint ? Perhaps the libraries I'm linking ? Compiler/linker options ? Thanks in advance, Ignasi Villagrasa.

2 1

Controls and TWEAK_WineLook
by Andrew McCall 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Now that the license discussion is dying down a bit... I've been working on porting a couple of aps in house via WineLib over the past couple of days. While in general it's been great, I've decided that I would like these applications to have a more linuxy type of look and feel. (As well as other programs I run via Wine.) I started to look at the controls implementation in WineLib. (I'm a very newbie Wine Hacker here, so I had to do a bit of searching...) I've been working with the control code in wine/controls. Now, just to be sure that I'm looking at this the right way: It appears that the Win31 look is implemented in general, inside the drawcode for each control, while the WinME/NT look is implemented mostly in uitools.c. Is this correct? I've started small trying to change some of the L&F behavoir of the push buttons. (Doing simple things like creating rounded edges/etc...) I've come to a couple of conclusions while trying to do this. I think it might be a good idea to try to move more of the Win31 look inside of the DrawFrameControl function. Is there something I'm missing as to why this hasn't been done already? I have considered a few options for my app: the first being to implement the new look just as the Win31 look is implemented now. I dislike this because of the added complexity it would give the already complex button/control code. The best method that I currently see is to modify the DrawFrameControl code to be friendly toward adding different looks. A benefit of this approach is that it would allow much of the Win31 look code to be moved into the DrawFrameControl function, allowing aps using that function call to keep a similar look throughout. I believe this could be done by adding a swtich statement or using function pointers in the current DrawFrameControl and then reimplementing each of the relevant functions for my wanted new look. Perhaps each of the new sets of UITOOLSXX functions could be moved into a different file. (Win31UITOOLS, LinuxUITools, Win95UITools.) If noone else is working on this code, I'd like to see what I could do with it... It think it's a fairly nice place to start in Winehacking. Is there a codestyle guide FAQ around that I could look at? ===== ---- Andrew McCall - andrew(a)nrrds.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: License change vote results
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

> > I thought that Jeremy's suggestion of wine-legal was a > better idea... > > Hmm. I had probably Uwe's requests for wine-license in mind more than > anything else, so must have missed that. But should we change the list > name now? I personally think that wine-license is a better name. There is very little reason to discuss other legal issues except for licenses and the license discussion might expand to other issues than just legal ones.

2 1

How do interrupts in wine work?
by Nog 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

Hi, I got this feeling that I'm absolutly wrong in this but here goes... The way that I see Interrupt handling in wine is that when a real-mode dos executable is loaded, the processor (or the os mabe?) is forced into v86 were the int xx intruction is not privilaged. In this mode an exception is issued when an int xx is encountered and is then handeld by the exception handler is dosvm.c. Which in turn checks if the we have a builtin handler for the interrupt and if so then we simply call its handler as defined in real_mode_handlers. But when the app switches to protected mode, the int xx instuction becomes privilaged and gets handeld by EmulateInstruction. In this function the 32-bit version is not implemented but the 16-bit version is (Is this correct (the one is 16-bit the other 32-bit)? If not then what does long_op symbolise?) Is it likley that this piece of code will ever get called? And if so then why does it assume that the insterrupt it is emulating is not builtin? What all of this probable garbage came from is: What will it take to emulate int xx from 32-bit code? nog.

2 6

Re: Jeremy makes a persuasive argument for LGPL (MS Kerberos stuff)
by Igor Furlan 19 Feb '02

19 Feb '02

On Tue, 19 February 2002, Sean Farley wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:17, Roland wrote: > > > At 09:07 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Anthony Taylor wrote: > > <snip> > > > >Take, for instance, Microsoft's attempted hijacking of the Kerberos > > >protocol. MS almost took an accepted standard, and almost perverted it > > > > Well, I think we are still better off as when M$ would have created their > > own protcol from scratch. They certainly have the money to do that. The way > > it is now, we just have to implement the extensions to be able to use > > M$-Kerberos. I don't see where the BSD license has brought any kind of > > disadvantage here. > > Actually, the open-sourced implementation changed their specification > and forced Microsoft into explaining what they changed, but my memory > about it is not the greatest. > > Sean > -------------- > scf(a)farley.org Yes.. they published their change... but they said in the same time that you are not allowed to implement it anywhere, because the changes are copyright-ed by them. It is basicaly the same as their "shared source" approach: you can see it but you are not allowed to use it. Igor

1 0

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