On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 11:38:38 +0200, Bernhard Übelacker
wrote:
> Am 28.06.25 um 11:13 schrieb Stephen Kitt:
> > Thanks for the investigation, I added both to ~repack-6. The resulting
> > package seems to work for me; since you were able to reproduce the bug
> > more reliably, would you be able to c
Am 28.06.25 um 11:13 schrieb Stephen Kitt:
Hi Bernhard,
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:07:38 +0200, Bernhard Übelacker
wrote:
Am 25.06.25 um 01:38 schrieb Bernhard Übelacker:
Applying the patch [1] (at least the upper half) makes winecfg no
longer crash and showing its window as expected.
[1]
http
Hi Bernhard,
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 17:07:38 +0200, Bernhard Übelacker
wrote:
> Am 25.06.25 um 01:38 schrieb Bernhard Übelacker:
> > Applying the patch [1] (at least the upper half) makes winecfg no
> > longer crash and showing its window as expected.
>
> > [1]
> > https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/
Am 25.06.25 um 01:38 schrieb Bernhard Übelacker:
Applying the patch [1] (at least the upper half) makes winecfg no
longer crash and showing its window as expected.
[1]
https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/commit/5c45391e9f79854915c50a15054f2de4888596a2
Just a short addition:
When using th
$ ulimit -u 100
$ winecfg
wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 00402E80 at address 00402E80
(thread 002c), starting debugger...
wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 00457560 at address 00457560
(thread 0034), starting debugger...
Hello everyone,
I was able to r
Control: severity -1 important
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 23:25:18 +0300, Michael Krylov wrote:
> Running current version of wine32 apparently leads to some bug that starts
> winedbg. The problem is, windbg also fails and starts another copy of
> winedbg process, which fails, starts another copy, e
On Tue, 27 May 2025 16:53:27 +0100 Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> Hi, I tried reproducing this on an amd64 machine, but I don't get the
> same results as your i686.
I don’t reproduce it either. I use wine32 on a daily basis, with many different
software, and I don’t think I have ever seen massive memory
On Mon, 5 May 2025 21:07:11 +0300 Mikhail Krylov wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 11:02:49PM +, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Are you sure this wasn't with 10.0~rc2~repack-3? That was the first
> version built with binutils 2.44 that introduced this problem. I
> applied upstream's fix in 10.0~rc2
On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 11:02:49PM +, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
> Are you sure this wasn't with 10.0~rc2~repack-3? That was the first
> version built with binutils 2.44 that introduced this problem. I
> applied upstream's fix in 10.0~rc2~repack-4, which remains included in
> 10.0~repack-3.
U
control: tag -1 moreinfo
Michael Krylov
> Package: wine
> Version: 10.0~repack-3
> Severity: critical
> Justification: causes serious data loss
I do not see this problem with 10.0~repack-3.
Are you sure this wasn't with 10.0~rc2~repack-3? That was the first
version built with binutils 2.44 tha
10 matches
Mail list logo
