2010/4/12 Nicolas Le Cam niko.lecam@gmail.com:
Le 12 avril 2010 11:02, Frédéric Delanoy frederic.delanoy@gmail.com a écrit :
2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam niko.lecam@gmail.com:
Le 9 avril 2010 13:30, Frédéric Delanoy frederic.delanoy@gmail.com a écrit :
2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam niko.lecam@gmail.com:
Hi Frédéric,
+processus clients se sont terminés. Ceci évite le coût inhérent à l'arrêt
sont -> soient
+\fIwineserver\fR dans le chemin système ou quelques autres emplacements vraisemblables.
"potentiels" or "possibles" suit better.
My understanding was that it looked first in the system path, then tried in, e.g., the home dir or other directories. I guess it looks in a hardcoded list of dirs, or sthg like that. In that sense, "possibles" does not fit IMO. "potentiels" or "vraisemblables" could both fit, but I wanted to insist on the probability for the command to be there (sthg like P[potentiels] < P[vraisemblables]).
Frédéric
It tries PATH and BINDIR (and server/wineserver if in a build directory). See http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=blob;f=libs/wine/config.c#l480 So 'potentiels' or 'possibles' fit better IMHO.
"Probables" may possibly fit even better (altough "potentiels" should be OK)?
Frédéric
IMHO, "Probables" or "Vraisemblables" mean that it tries randomly some paths and isn't at all certain to succeed, IOW it sounds really weak ; where "Potentiels" or "Possibles" mean that if wineserver can't be found in a fixed number of (logically computed) places, you need to fix your system because you have a problem. I really prefer the second option.
OK for "potentiels" in that case (although "probables" seems stronger than "possibles" IMHO)
Frédéric