On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:20:26 +1100 Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ben Klein shacklein@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/8 Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 5:46 PM, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net wrote:
Codeweavers supports Wine and provides a lot of assistance with fixing bugs. I have not seen a Cedega provide a patch in a long time.
James McKenzie
Yes, they do, but it's NOT wine. If someone mentions an app works well in Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, fine. If they submit a howto/test data for Cedega/Crossover/PlayonLinux, it should be deleted.
Crossover is not special in that regard.
Austin, did you see James's earlier post? I've quoted it for you:
I did, just clarifying my view.
2009/3/8 James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@earthlink.net:
Ben Klein wrote:
[cut to conserve space and to get to the point] appdb.winehq.org is for Wine application test data. If a user submits test data that says "Garbage" in Wine, with an additional comment that says "I was able to get this working in Crossover Office", I don't have a problem. However, if the test data is entirely for Crossover, or RecatOS, Cedega or WineX for that matter, it does not belong on AppDB.
I agree with the use of the Wine Applications Database with these restrictions. I don't want to see products listed that do not conform to the same standards as Wine.
James and I are on agreement on this point.
"Rating: Garbage What works: Installer What doesn't work: Starting the game What wasn't tested: N/A Additional comments: This works in Crossover Games, but not in Wine" ^^ I don't have a problem with this. (If it mentioned Cedega/WineX or ReactOS, I'd probably remove the additional comment, but leave the test data intact. CodeWeavers products are a special case :) )
I think this is the point. Crossover, yes. The rest of the stuff, no. And this is exactly what I was talking about. If it does not work in Wine, rating: Garbage, not Plat, Gold or Bronze.
James McKenzie
I believe we can allow Crossover to be a special case if a user opts to mention it in the "Additional comments" section. "It works better in Crossover Office" is perfectly acceptable to me, given the amount of work Codeweavers put in to Wine, but I won't say the same for other Wine project forks (Cedega, ReactOS) that are a world apart and don't contribute back to upstream.
Yes, they do. But their product isn't Wine, and shouldn't be treated special IMHO. They have ads on Winehq, as well as thank you's in a few other places. To a user that just wants their app to work, it makes no difference if Wine is broken but Cedega and Crossover aren't. They just want it to work. There's no reason to allow those applications working in Crossover to get that information, but not Cedega.
The AppDB admins should probably try to come to some consensus over this point. I've made my views clear, so if any other admins want to comment ... :) I'm certainly happy to go with majority rule.
I think Crossover should be treated the same as any other third party app, but I have no objection to any of them being mentioned under additional comments in test reports, so long as the test report itself is for Wine. I also don't care if users pitch those products in the general comments section. In both cases whatever is said is clearly just the opinion of the individual who posted them.
My concern is with maintainer-written howtos that call for PlayOnLinux or Ies4Linux, because they mislead users into believing they are supported here. Is there a consensus that they don't belong in the AppDB?