On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 6:35 PM, wineappdb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not offer version + (GIT) e.g "1.1.5 GIT" or e.g "1.1.5+" ?
> And to pick it offer a combo box "Release" or "Git" then you pick your wine
> version.
That'll double the number of Wine versions, and make searching much
hard
Hello Chris Robinson,
A long time ago you wrote in
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2007-October/059550.html
that you got my example program running:
"If I force offscreen rendering and add the flag, the demo works."
Could you have a look at the following bug report and may explain how
Based on the current information, wouldn't it be smartest to ask the users
which drive(s) they would like included in the search, or is it actually
required that all disks be scanned?
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Mark Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 14:55, Juan Lan
В сообщении от Saturday 09 August 2008 17:18:17 Detlef Riekenberg написал(а):
> On Fr, 2008-08-01 at 12:56 +0100, Huw Davies wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> The first thing, i like to see is a Design in the correct way:
> Inside gdi32 while using Eng* and friends.
> (Needed by Printer drivers, and any
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:46:17 -0700
James McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> > --- On Sun, 28/9/08, Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The con is actually less trouble than you think - if somebody reports
> > a bug against CVS/GIT, it would be reasonab
http://www.winehq.org/site/wineconf/media
-Newman
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 02:11:17 am Florian Köberle wrote:
> A long time ago you wrote in
> http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2007-October/059550.html
> that you got my example program running:
>
> "If I force offscreen rendering and add the flag, the demo works."
>
> Could you have a
Can you add a test for the default priority?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kjell Rune
Skaaraas
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 11:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IWineD3DResourceImpl_GetPriority/SetPriority
Hello,
Please don't use the previousl
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I get these new errors after todays git update:
>>
>> monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
>> monthcal.c:677: Test
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Marcus Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I get these new errors after todays git update:
>
> monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
> monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
> monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, g
Hi,
I get these new errors after todays git update:
monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
monthcal.c:677: Test failed: Expected 65542, got 65536
monthcal.c:677: Test fail
2008/9/30 Henri Verbeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/9/30 Rob Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The comparison should be (D3D_OK == hr && myDevice), not (D3D_OK ==
>> (hr && myDevice)).
>>
> d3d8 and d3d9 are pretty bad at stuff like this, unfortunately.
> Strictly speaking we should also compare to
2008/9/30 Rob Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The comparison should be (D3D_OK == hr && myDevice), not (D3D_OK ==
> (hr && myDevice)).
>
d3d8 and d3d9 are pretty bad at stuff like this, unfortunately.
Strictly speaking we should also compare to WINED3D_OK instead of
D3D_OK here, but they have the s
Hi,
Kjell Rune Skaaraas wrote:
> Hello,I've submitted a patch to wine-patches for
> IWineD3DResourceImpl_GetPriority/SetPriority that's incorrect (it
> makes changes to exception.c which shouldn't be there, they were just
> part of me trying to debug something). Is there anything like a cancel
> p
Hello,I've submitted a patch to wine-patches for
IWineD3DResourceImpl_GetPriority/SetPriority that's incorrect (it makes changes
to exception.c which shouldn't be there, they were just part of me trying to
debug something). Is there anything like a cancel procedure I should do, or
should I just
Mark W. wrote:
>As part of the installation process, under Windows our
>program does a full-disk search of all local hard drives,
>but ignoring network drives and removable media.
>Under Wine, this doesn't work too well, as there's not
>a one-to-one mapping between disks and drive letters,
>and the
Am 30.09.2008 um 12:55 schrieb Eric Pouech:
> Your design is wrong IMO. You don't handle reparse points at all;
> you only
> rely on the nature of a drive, which isn't sufficient in most
> cases. See
> mounting volumes for example where you can mount a whole volume
> anywhere in
> an NTFS p
Your design is wrong IMO. You don't handle reparse points at all; you only
rely on the nature of a drive, which isn't sufficient in most cases. See
mounting volumes for example where you can mount a whole volume anywhere in
an NTFS partition.
The correct fix would be to:
- ensure your code handles
Henri Verbeet wrote:
>2008/9/29 Kjell Rune Skaaraas :
>> Hello,
>>
>> A simple patch which adds converting between A8R8G8B8 and X8R8G8B8 that
>> gives me one less warning to deal with while trying to make a game function.
>> It zeroes out the alpha channel to be on the safe side, though it should
19 matches
Mail list logo
