If you look at http://bugs.winehq.org/ you'll see a link on the left hand side called "1.0 Tasks", which lists the 1.0 bugs being tracked in bugzilla. Here's the URL it links to http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&am...
I suspect a few of these are stale, and a bunch others are missing, but I like the idea of using bugzilla to track our progress to 1.0.
What other bugs should be fixed before 1.0? Let's nominate a few bugs to add to the 1.0 task list, discuss them a bit, and see what Alexandre thinks.
For instance: I'd like one goal of 1.0 to be "make Windows developers take Wine seriously." To achieve that, I think 1.0 has to support at least some Microsoft development tools well, including their IDEs and debuggers. It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET, so maybe supporting the last pre-.NET versions of Visual C++ (6.2?) and Visual Basic (6.0?) would be a good goal. And I don't think it's that unreasonable anymore; Wine is pretty close to being able to do that. What do y'all think? - Dan
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 06:01, Dan Kegel wrote:
If you look at http://bugs.winehq.org/ you'll see a link on the left hand side called "1.0 Tasks", which lists the 1.0 bugs being tracked in bugzilla. Here's the URL it links to http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&am... tatus=REOPENED&product=Wine&target_milestone=1.0.0
I suspect a few of these are stale, and a bunch others are missing, but I like the idea of using bugzilla to track our progress to 1.0.
What other bugs should be fixed before 1.0? Let's nominate a few bugs to add to the 1.0 task list, discuss them a bit, and see what Alexandre thinks.
For instance: I'd like one goal of 1.0 to be "make Windows developers take Wine seriously." To achieve that, I think 1.0 has to support at least some Microsoft development tools well, including their IDEs and debuggers. It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET, so maybe supporting the last pre-.NET versions of Visual C++ (6.2?) and Visual Basic (6.0?) would be a good goal. And I don't think it's that unreasonable anymore; Wine is pretty close to being able to do that. What do y'all think?
- Dan
I approve (Note the #3902 should be renamed as 'DIB Engine rewrite', and i don't think is mandatory for 1.0)
But i think we must fix users most hated bugs as: - dsound deadlocks/craps - openGL problems (multi contexts, fb/visual configs) - lotus problems
Note: it will be interesting to add user votes to wine-bugs (ala kde) to better see user needs.
Regards, Raphael
On 5/30/06, Raphael fenix@club-internet.fr wrote:
(Note the #3902 should be renamed as 'DIB Engine rewrite'
Agreed; done. http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3902
and i don't think is mandatory for 1.0)
Probably right. Let's create the next milestone after 1.0, say 1.1, and start retargeting bugs we don't plan to fix for 1.0. (That's what GCC does; some bugs they retarget early, some just before the release.)
But i think we must fix users most hated bugs as:
- dsound deadlocks/craps
- openGL problems (multi contexts, fb/visual configs)
- lotus problems
The OpenGL child window bug, http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2398 probably won't be fixed for 1.0 because it requires an X server change.
I'm not sure lotus notes problems should block 1.0, as IBM has a native Linux client now, but if someone wants to fix them (especially the ones in usp10.dll netapi32.dll, that would be great.
Note: it will be interesting to add user votes to wine-bugs (ala kde) to better see user needs.
There are already user votes in bugzilla, that should suffice. - Dan
On Tuesday, May 30, 2006 09:56, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm not sure lotus notes problems should block 1.0, as IBM has a native Linux client now, but if someone wants to fix them (especially the ones in usp10.dll netapi32.dll, that would be great.
They do? I would be very interested to see that... There are Linux packages of Lotus Notes, but every one I've seen uses Wine.
- Neil
On 5/30/06, Neil Skrypuch ns03ja@brocku.ca wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2006 09:56, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm not sure lotus notes problems should block 1.0, as IBM has a native Linux client now, but if someone wants to fix them (especially the ones in usp10.dll netapi32.dll, that would be great.
They do? I would be very interested to see that... There are Linux packages of Lotus Notes, but every one I've seen uses Wine.
It's Java-based, on the Eclipse platform, if you can believe it. I don't know when it'll be released. - Dan
On Tuesday, May 30, 2006 23:51, Dan Kegel wrote:
On 5/30/06, Neil Skrypuch ns03ja@brocku.ca wrote:
On Tuesday, May 30, 2006 09:56, Dan Kegel wrote:
I'm not sure lotus notes problems should block 1.0, as IBM has a native Linux client now, but if someone wants to fix them (especially the ones in usp10.dll netapi32.dll, that would be great.
They do? I would be very interested to see that... There are Linux packages of Lotus Notes, but every one I've seen uses Wine.
It's Java-based, on the Eclipse platform, if you can believe it. I don't know when it'll be released.
- Dan
I've heard murmuring to that effect before (specifically, the Rich Client Platform portion of Eclipse), although I've yet to see anything concrete. Not that I don't expect it to happen (Notes already has some Java components, at least to the point where it bundles it's own jre/jdk and has a Java logo/symbol on the splash screen), but my impression of Notes is that it's a pretty big beast, and I don't think a complete port to anything would go without a fight.
Having said that, it's hard to know how long Notes for Linux has been in development, and Notes certainly has been used on other platforms before. Either way, native Notes for Linux isn't here yet, but neither is Wine 1.0.
- Neil
On Mon, 29 May 2006 21:01:46 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
I suspect a few of these are stale, and a bunch others are missing, but I like the idea of using bugzilla to track our progress to 1.0.
Hmm, maybe. Bugzilla lists have a tendency to come and go though as people nominate their bugs and as they are fixed. I think it's not quite as satisfying as a mostly static list. I appreciate it's easier to set up though :)
What other bugs should be fixed before 1.0?
IMHO we should really nail the window management problems. The WM rewrite was supposed to fix our woes with unmanaged windows and fullscreening for ever but it hasn't happened yet.
It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET
Is it? We already run Java just fine and I am sure Mike M had command line .NET apps running a year or two ago. It might be plausible.
thanks -mike
On 5/29/06, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
If you look at http://bugs.winehq.org/ you'll see a link on the left hand side called "1.0 Tasks", which lists the 1.0 bugs being tracked in bugzilla. ... I like the idea of using bugzilla to track our progress to 1.0.
Hmm, maybe. Bugzilla lists have a tendency to come and go though as people nominate their bugs
(Hmm, isn't target a privileged field? It probably should be if it isn't.)
and as they are fixed.
That's a GOOD thing :-)
I think it's not quite as satisfying as a mostly static list.
Let's use it for a while, then take a snapshot and use it for our static list, maybe.
IMHO we should really nail the window management problems. The WM rewrite was supposed to fix our woes with unmanaged windows and fullscreening for ever but it hasn't happened yet.
Go ahead and retarget those to 1.0, then, please.
It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET
Is it? We already run Java just fine and I am sure Mike M had command line .NET apps running a year or two ago. It might be plausible.
I agree that Sun's Java runtime is probably something we should support for 1.0. But Java isn't "just fine" under Wine; I've run into installers that fail because they crash inside Sun's JVM on Wine. To say we really support Java, though, probably means figuring out how to run the Mauve regression tests under wine. If someone wants to do that, please do!
If someone wants to start putting effort into getting .NET, or for that matter Mono, up and running, great. But personally, I'd be just fine with making .NET support a 1.1 feature. - Dan
On Tue, 30 May 2006 07:14:07 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
Go ahead and retarget those to 1.0, then, please.
OK. I need to talk to Tony, I seem to have lost my bugzilla privs at some point (probably changing email address).
I agree that Sun's Java runtime is probably something we should support for 1.0. But Java isn't "just fine" under Wine; I've run into installers that fail because they crash inside Sun's JVM on Wine.
That sucks :( A few years ago I was running pretty complex Swing apps on it. I wonder if it's regressed or if those are bugs I just never hit.
If someone wants to start putting effort into getting .NET, or for that matter Mono, up and running, great. But personally, I'd be just fine with making .NET support a 1.1 feature. - Dan
Yes, OK. What's the use case for running VS on Linux; is the idea that as developers migrate they can continue working on their old software? Or that they can use these tools to write new software that targets Win32?
thanks -mike
On 5/29/06, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
I'd like one goal of 1.0 to be "make Windows developers take Wine seriously." To achieve that, I think 1.0 has to support at least some Microsoft development tools well, including their IDEs and debuggers. It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET, so maybe supporting the last pre-.NET versions of Visual C++ (6.2?) and Visual Basic (6.0?) would be a good goal.
In support of the idea that people will dismiss Wine until it can run the VB IDE, here are a couple references on the web:
http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=trying_out_picassa_for_linux "... they will continue to dismiss the Linux platform as being no good for programming until it hosts Microsoft Visual Basic."
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/feature/11246.html "Using Wine/CrossOver Office was an attractive option, but in a lot of ways it didn't solve the problem for the long term. Yes, I could get the application as it was compiled to run on Linux, most likely. But I had concerns about how to handle any fixes that might be required in the future. I would still need to have a Windows desktop to run the Visual Basic development environment."
These are only two voices, but I bet they speak for a lot of people. - Dan
Mike Hearn wrote:
What's the use case for running VS on Linux; is the idea that as developers migrate they can continue working on their old software? Or that they can use these tools to write new software that targets Win32?
I guess there are two main use cases: 1) developer wants to debug an app that misbehaves on Linux/Wine but not on Windows 2) manager or clueless pundit who are into VB or VC++ wants to say Wine is useless, and by supporting Visual Studio we convince them otherwise
Dan Kegel wrote:
What other bugs should be fixed before 1.0? Let's nominate a few bugs to add to the 1.0 task list, discuss them a bit, and see what Alexandre thinks.
For instance: I'd like one goal of 1.0 to be "make Windows developers take Wine seriously." To achieve that, I think 1.0 has to support at least some Microsoft development tools well, including their IDEs and debuggers. It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET, so maybe supporting the last pre-.NET versions of Visual C++ (6.2?) and Visual Basic (6.0?) would be a good goal. And I don't think it's that unreasonable anymore; Wine is pretty close to being able to do that. What do y'all think?
- Dan
People who manage to compile VB apps under Wine with VB6 are likely to stumble upon this bug (at least under GNOME/Metacity):
Bug 1598 - delphi 3 - managed - missing minimize/maximize buttons http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1598
In addition, if anyone tries to use DBGRID32.OCX, they will surely hit this bug:
Bug 3846 - Wine can't run Roderick Colenbrander's DBGRID32.OCX VB test apps yet http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3846
Alex Villacís Lasso
Alex Villacís Lasso wrote:
In addition, if anyone tries to use DBGRID32.OCX, they will surely hit this bug:
Bug 3846 - Wine can't run Roderick Colenbrander's DBGRID32.OCX VB test apps yet http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3846
This should be fixed as of today.
... "make Windows developers take Wine seriously."
What about "make offices take Wine seriously."? Okay... former versions of MS Office work very well, but many offices, e.g. at universities, also depend on Acrobat Standard for doing everyday-stuff. The latest Acrobat which works (more or less - seems to have a printing problems) out of the box is v. 5, although you can get Acrobat Reader 7 working using Microsoft's IE.
Ciao,
Olaf
Oh, FWLIW, I have suggested to Jason Matusow, the current Microsoft Standards maven, that the time has come (portentious voice ;) to submit the MS Win32 API to the standardization process, since Wine is now in Beta, there are more than one OS supporting the Win32 API as the standard API, and besides, Microsoft has muddied the waters considerably with its confused defintion of Vista vis-a-vis the DotNET project.
Inspired heckling, even if I do say so myself! ;) FWLIW! ;)
Wesley Parish
On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:01, Dan Kegel wrote:
If you look at http://bugs.winehq.org/ you'll see a link on the left hand side called "1.0 Tasks", which lists the 1.0 bugs being tracked in bugzilla. Here's the URL it links to http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&am... tatus=REOPENED&product=Wine&target_milestone=1.0.0
I suspect a few of these are stale, and a bunch others are missing, but I like the idea of using bugzilla to track our progress to 1.0.
What other bugs should be fixed before 1.0? Let's nominate a few bugs to add to the 1.0 task list, discuss them a bit, and see what Alexandre thinks.
For instance: I'd like one goal of 1.0 to be "make Windows developers take Wine seriously." To achieve that, I think 1.0 has to support at least some Microsoft development tools well, including their IDEs and debuggers. It's probably unreasonable to require 1.0 to support .NET, so maybe supporting the last pre-.NET versions of Visual C++ (6.2?) and Visual Basic (6.0?) would be a good goal. And I don't think it's that unreasonable anymore; Wine is pretty close to being able to do that. What do y'all think?
- Dan
-
Alex Villacís Lasso -
Dan Kegel -
Mike Hearn -
Neil Skrypuch -
Olaf Leidinger -
Raphael -
Robert Shearman -
Wesley Parish