Hi Paul.
Thanks for looking at this, but I'm afraid I'm slightly confused by your modified version of the patch ....
After thinking about my way the next day, i made a mistake:
My way was: - compiling "out-of-tree" - wineprefixcreate --use-wine-tree /path/to/wine.bin (but forgot --use-source-tree <dir>) - then "$datadir" give you the path to the local copy of "wine.inf"
But the last line was my mistake, because "$datadir" was changed inside "--use-wine-tree".
When the user forgot --use-source-tree, then "wine.inf" is not copied and your error-message comes up (.. bug in wine or it's packaging...)
The only additional validation, which might be useful, is to alert the user, when "--use-source-tree" is given, but "--use-wine-tree" is missing.
So, sorry I don't see the problem here. Could you explain further?
Afterwards, same for me... Sorry for that.
- topdir=""
- srcdatadir=""
AFAIK, this is basically a no-op unless you're up to mischief.
When the variable is set in the environment while starting wineprefixcreate, the script my use some files from somewhere in the universe.
# Copy the .inf script and run it if [ -n "$topdir$srcdatadir" ]
I *think* what you mean is something more like if [ -n "$topdir" -o -n "$srcdatadir" ]; then
yes, only in a short form.
The duplication arises because of the previous issues with $datadir (which I think is a mistake).
agree.
Perhaps, if you need to record the source-top-dir it would be better to define a $srctopdir inside the switch statement, defining $srcdatadir as $srctopdir/tools
of course, that's another way of "do the same"
I also noticed you made some cosmetic changes to winewrapper, but included this chunk:
- if [ ! -z "$srcdir" ]; then
- if [ -n "$srcdir" ]; then
Isn't ``[ ! -z "$var" ]'' equivalent to ``[ -n "$var" ]'' ?
I only want remove the negation, because there is a simple switch for the test, we need here.