On 3 February 2011 18:58, Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com writes:
On 3 February 2011 18:01, Charles Davis cdavis@mymail.mines.edu wrote:
I'm for that. In fact, my humble opinion is that Wine on Mac should only use libraries that are part of the OS (i.e. only dylibs in /usr/lib and
I think Wine should have as few OS X (or Ubuntu for that matter) specific hacks as possible.
It shouldn't have hacks, but I don't think it's unreasonable to use platform-specific services for things that don't have widely accepted standards.
That was mostly in reply to the general idea of only using Apple provided libraries for no good reason. In fact, if you bring that to its logical conclusion OS X users shouldn't use Wine at all, since those are non-Apple libraries as well.
I'm not opposed to using platform specific libraries where appropriate. However, there's certainly a maintenance and support cost there. From what I've seen in the patch Ken posted it should be possible to do right on the technical side, although this version of that patch isn't quite it. It does mean you know have two implementations to support on Bugzilla etc. though.
The part I'm personally not so convinced of is that this is going to benefit Wine in any way. I'm not buying the argument that it's going to simplify things much for Wine users on OS X. If someone is capable of getting Wine to build and run successfully on OS X, I don't think GnuTLS is going to be much of a problem either. I don't have the impression most OS X users compile Wine themselves anyway though.