On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nathaniel Gray n8gray@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated.
No. Because that allows for all sorts of dirty hacks, and is confusing to users. Ratings should specify default wine. They can list patches, etc., in the comments, with a note of how well it works.
It seems to me that digging through comments to find out if a report refers to a version that was patched is more confusing than having it advertised right up front in the version string. And it makes sense -- a patched 1.1.11 is not the same *version* as 1.1.11.
Cheers, -n8