On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 16:31 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
The tool you propose is not it, as I said in my first post, "Dynamic" is the only solution for what I was talking about, i.e. the use of same registry.
Hmm, I don't see why. You realise we can't write to the native registry yes? So using a native registry with the old code was equivalent to doing an import each time you started Wine. For the case where you install under Windows then run under Wine, you only need one import anyway. For cases where you change settings under Windows and expect them to be reflected in Wine but not vice-versa, then yes you'd have to use winecfg to reimport each time (but this is functionally equivalent and could be easily shell scripted).
That is because it is the type of people you will not here about. You must admit that AJ is the most allegeable in making AJ happy. So if he removed it, what are the chances I'll make him happy? If Winecfg breaks such basic functionality, than it is badly designed, and should be rethought. I don't want to go into a technical argument here. A registry bootstrapping registry is probably a difficult task.
Well exactly. It was removed for technical reasons to do with the switch to a single registry, not winecfg per se.
You need a seed registry that can later in the boot, merge with a bigger registry. Hence the use of config file before. On windows I do not have control on the registry files used, and I cannot share them with other installations. So I guess why Wine should be different. But Wine is different, it was different. What is more important? Native registry support or No Config file. I would prefer both …
We could probably use an environment variable, or auto-detect it in future.
thanks -mike