Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de writes:
Changelog: dlls/x11drv/window.c: X11DRV_sync_whole_window_position Don't specify a stacking order agains unvisible windows
This will break other things. The right fix is to make the desktop option work correctly across processes.
However, I think it unbreaks InstallShield, which is a fantastically common application. It might be a case of a "lesser of two evils" decision.
On Tue, 2003-07-01 at 00:01, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Uwe Bonnes bon@elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de writes:
Changelog: dlls/x11drv/window.c: X11DRV_sync_whole_window_position Don't specify a stacking order agains unvisible windows
This will break other things. The right fix is to make the desktop option work correctly across processes.
"Mike Hearn" m.hearn@signal.qinetiq.com wrote:
However, I think it unbreaks InstallShield, which is a fantastically common application. It might be a case of a "lesser of two evils" decision.
Since you don't know what Alexandre means by "other things", you certainly can't compare what evil is lesser :-) Anyway, I believe that Alexandre already mentioned that making desktop mode work is a part of the planned window management rewrite which will be done soon.
Since you don't know what Alexandre means by "other things", you certainly can't compare what evil is lesser :-)
Surely it couldn't break ..... notepad!?! That would be awful! :)
Anyway, I believe that Alexandre already mentioned that making desktop mode work is a part of the planned window management rewrite which will be done soon.
For the time being I found that removing the InstallShield AppDefaults entries made it not crash anyway (but the window management was obviously messed up).
The main problem is that the recommendation has always been to install things into Wine - if InstallShield doesn't work, users fall at the first hurdle.
Mike Hearn m.hearn@signal.qinetiq.com writes:
However, I think it unbreaks InstallShield, which is a fantastically common application. It might be a case of a "lesser of two evils" decision.
No it's a "correct vs. wrong" decision. The existing code is correct and there's no reason to break it, even if doing that happens to mask another bug.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Mike Hearn