Hello,
there are several hardware related libraries, like libusb and libftd2xx which exist on Windows and at least linux. I tried already to add libftd2xx, but with silent reject.
What is the preferred way to handle it? I feel including in wine is favorable, as this gives a good user impression, as some hardware device connected to the machine with the windows software installed has good chances to work out of the box.
Another possibility, but much less favourable i.m.h.o. would be to build an add-on dll, distributed at either some place at winehq or else. This however requires user intervention and some way to let the user know about the translation dll.
Bye
On 26 July 2010 13:28, Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de wrote:
there are several hardware related libraries, like libusb and libftd2xx which exist on Windows and at least linux. I tried already to add libftd2xx, but with silent reject.
What is the preferred way to handle it? I feel including in wine is favorable, as this gives a good user impression, as some hardware device connected to the machine with the windows software installed has good chances to work out of the box.
I think the idea there is that these would be redundant once Wine gets proper USB support, though that may still take a while.
"Henri" == Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com writes:
Henri> On 26 July 2010 13:28, Uwe Bonnes Henri> bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de wrote: >> there are several hardware related libraries, like libusb and >> libftd2xx which exist on Windows and at least linux. I tried already >> to add libftd2xx, but with silent reject. >> >> What is the preferred way to handle it? I feel including in wine is >> favorable, as this gives a good user impression, as some hardware >> device connected to the machine with the windows software installed >> has good chances to work out of the box. >> Henri> I think the idea there is that these would be redundant once Wine Henri> gets proper USB support, though that may still take a while.
Wrapper DLLs, where possible, are much more favorable. They don't require server calls for each function call.
On 26 July 2010 15:58, Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de wrote:
Wrapper DLLs, where possible, are much more favorable. They don't require server calls for each function call.
I'd imagine proper USB support wouldn't either. That said, I don't know for sure if that's the real reason either, it could also be a specific issue with that patch, or a more general consideration like "Let's not add wrappers for every possible Linux library".
-
Henri Verbeet -
Uwe Bonnes