Hmm. gecko download hung for me once. I saw fixme:urlmon:ProtocolStream_Read Read failed: 800c0008 in the log, which makes me wonder if our download code doesn't handle transient network errors well.
Time to get rid of the download, and just bundle gecko outright, I say...
I make the mandriva rpms for wine. This would make the rpms 30% bigger. And you would download the same gecko binary over and over again with every new version.
But if that is not a problem than it can be easily done.
On Feb 9, 2008 5:17 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Hmm. gecko download hung for me once. I saw fixme:urlmon:ProtocolStream_Read Read failed: 800c0008 in the log, which makes me wonder if our download code doesn't handle transient network errors well.
Time to get rid of the download, and just bundle gecko outright, I say...
I make the mandriva rpms for wine. This would make the rpms 30% bigger. And you would download the same gecko binary over and over again with every new version.
But if that is not a problem than it can be easily done.
Why not have package maintainers package gecko like most do development files. So you could have for example on ubuntu: $ sudo apt-get install wine wine-dev wine-gecko
Where wine-gecko wouldn't have to be upgraded very often.
-Austin
Austin English wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 5:17 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Hmm. gecko download hung for me once. I saw fixme:urlmon:ProtocolStream_Read Read failed: 800c0008 in the log, which makes me wonder if our download code doesn't handle transient network errors well.
Time to get rid of the download, and just bundle gecko outright, I say...
I make the mandriva rpms for wine. This would make the rpms 30% bigger. And you would download the same gecko binary over and over again with every new version.
But if that is not a problem than it can be easily done.
Why not have package maintainers package gecko like most do development files. So you could have for example on ubuntu: $ sudo apt-get install wine wine-dev wine-gecko
Where wine-gecko wouldn't have to be upgraded very often.
-Austin
This would be ideal, however last I heard gecko didn't compile properly in mingw. Is this no longer the case? Can we build it on Ubuntu?
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
Scott Ritchie wrote:
This would be ideal, however last I heard gecko didn't compile properly in mingw. Is this no longer the case? Can we build it on Ubuntu?
Compiling the package is quite tricky. I've compiled it on Windows XP using MSVC. There is no other way ATM, so I think that my Gecko package should be included as is in Linux packages.
Thanks, Jacek
On Feb 10, 2008 10:11 PM, Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com wrote:
Compiling the package is quite tricky. I've compiled it on Windows XP using MSVC. There is no other way ATM, so I think that my Gecko package should be included as is in Linux packages.
Where is the source package? Is it just from the normal firefox source tree with certain configuration options?
Steven Edwards wrote:
On Feb 10, 2008 10:11 PM, Jacek Caban jacek@codeweavers.com wrote:
Compiling the package is quite tricky. I've compiled it on Windows XP using MSVC. There is no other way ATM, so I think that my Gecko package should be included as is in Linux packages.
Where is the source package? Is it just from the normal firefox source tree with certain configuration options?
The source available is on Wine's SourceForge site.
Jacek
Austin English wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 5:17 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Hmm. gecko download hung for me once. I saw fixme:urlmon:ProtocolStream_Read Read failed: 800c0008 in the log, which makes me wonder if our download code doesn't handle transient network errors well.
Time to get rid of the download, and just bundle gecko outright, I say...
I make the mandriva rpms for wine. This would make the rpms 30% bigger. And you would download the same gecko binary over and over again with every new version.
But if that is not a problem than it can be easily done.
Why not have package maintainers package gecko like most do development files. So you could have for example on ubuntu: $ sudo apt-get install wine wine-dev wine-gecko
Where wine-gecko wouldn't have to be upgraded very often.
-Austin
I looked into it. And there are some options.
I can make a separate package of gecko that I can make it a dependencie of wine. Problem is people have to know where to find it or the get stuck.
I can also make the package and make it not a dependencie on wine but the the people don't know it exist.
And I can just put it in the wine package.
I think this is the best option in this case. Its the easiest option because people only have to download en install one package.
marco
You could make it a suggested package, a la wine-dev. Including is also a possibility, but keep in mind that's several megabytes that don't change with each release (or that often) that have to be redownloaded each time. I've got high bandwith, so doesn't bother me, but a lot of people don't...
-Austin
On Feb 13, 2008 3:24 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Austin English wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 5:17 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Hmm. gecko download hung for me once. I saw fixme:urlmon:ProtocolStream_Read Read failed: 800c0008 in the log, which makes me wonder if our download code doesn't handle transient network errors well.
Time to get rid of the download, and just bundle gecko outright, I say...
I make the mandriva rpms for wine. This would make the rpms 30% bigger. And you would download the same gecko binary over and over again with every new version.
But if that is not a problem than it can be easily done.
Why not have package maintainers package gecko like most do development files. So you could have for example on ubuntu: $ sudo apt-get install wine wine-dev wine-gecko
Where wine-gecko wouldn't have to be upgraded very often.
-Austin
I looked into it. And there are some options.
I can make a separate package of gecko that I can make it a dependencie of wine. Problem is people have to know where to find it or the get stuck.
I can also make the package and make it not a dependencie on wine but the the people don't know it exist.
And I can just put it in the wine package.
I think this is the best option in this case. Its the easiest option because people only have to download en install one package.
marco
Yes a suggested package is possible. But most people would not know it is there and would not install it.
What is the status of the gecko package. Is it something people really need for a good wine experience or do we want to present it as a suggestion ?
Marco
Austin English wrote:
You could make it a suggested package, a la wine-dev. Including is also a possibility, but keep in mind that's several megabytes that don't change with each release (or that often) that have to be redownloaded each time. I've got high bandwith, so doesn't bother me, but a lot of people don't...
-Austin
On Feb 13, 2008 3:24 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Austin English wrote:
On Feb 9, 2008 5:17 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Hmm. gecko download hung for me once. I saw fixme:urlmon:ProtocolStream_Read Read failed: 800c0008 in the log, which makes me wonder if our download code doesn't handle transient network errors well.
Time to get rid of the download, and just bundle gecko outright, I say...
I make the mandriva rpms for wine. This would make the rpms 30% bigger. And you would download the same gecko binary over and over again with every new version.
But if that is not a problem than it can be easily done.
Why not have package maintainers package gecko like most do development files. So you could have for example on ubuntu: $ sudo apt-get install wine wine-dev wine-gecko
Where wine-gecko wouldn't have to be upgraded very often.
-Austin
I looked into it. And there are some options.
I can make a separate package of gecko that I can make it a dependencie of wine. Problem is people have to know where to find it or the get stuck.
I can also make the package and make it not a dependencie on wine but the the people don't know it exist.
And I can just put it in the wine package.
I think this is the best option in this case. Its the easiest option because people only have to download en install one package.
marco
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM, marco marco@mandrivaclub.nl wrote:
Yes a suggested package is possible. But most people would not know it is there and would not install it.
Could adjust the current dialog that asks to install gecko to say something to the effect of 'This package may also be available through your distribution's package manager.'
What is the status of the gecko package. Is it something people really need for a good wine experience or do we want to present it as a suggestion ?
In my personal experience when testing apps for bug reports/AppDB, I've found around 1/4 or so of applications require it for some functionality. This is highly subjective, of course, and others may have different experiences.
-Austin
marco wrote:
I looked into it. And there are some options.
I can make a separate package of gecko that I can make it a dependencie of wine. Problem is people have to know where to find it or the get stuck.
I can also make the package and make it not a dependencie on wine but the the people don't know it exist.
And I can just put it in the wine package.
I think this is the best option in this case. Its the easiest option because people only have to download en install one package.
marco
This sounds good to me, but lets not compartmentalize wine too much, like Debian. Who wants to find out that you need so many wine* packages in order to get something to work?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM, TheBlunderbuss tehblunderbuss@gmail.com wrote:
marco wrote:
I looked into it. And there are some options.
I can make a separate package of gecko that I can make it a dependencie of wine. Problem is people have to know where to find it or the get stuck.
I can also make the package and make it not a dependencie on wine but the the people don't know it exist.
And I can just put it in the wine package.
I think this is the best option in this case. Its the easiest option because people only have to download en install one package.
marco
This sounds good to me, but lets not compartmentalize wine too much, like Debian. Who wants to find out that you need so many wine* packages in order to get something to work?
Agreed, but I don't think wine, wine-dev, and wine-gecko is too much, especially considering that wine-gecko rarely changes...
- Austin
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:55:26AM -0600, Austin English wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32 AM, TheBlunderbuss tehblunderbuss@gmail.com wrote:
marco wrote:
I can make a separate package of gecko
This sounds good to me, but lets not compartmentalize wine too much, like Debian. Who wants to find out that you need so many wine* packages in order to get something to work?
Agreed, but I don't think wine, wine-dev, and wine-gecko is too much, especially considering that wine-gecko rarely changes...
IMHO there should be a meta-package that is named wine which depends on everything wine, but which itself doesn't contain any files. That is also how it seems to have been done in the latest wine in debian, so it is no problem anymore that their wine is split up in many packages. But users who know what they do can still choose the subset they want.
Jan
-
Austin English -
Jacek Caban -
Jan Zerebecki -
marco -
Scott Ritchie -
Steven Edwards -
TheBlunderbuss