On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Hmm. So making riched20 prefer native would break apps
> that use msftedit, if native riched20 but no native msftedit is present?
>
Yes. Although I haven't heard of this being an issue with people using
winetricks.
>
> Does this mean that ou
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
>> I think that properly educating new users is more valuable than
>> telling them "click on this magic link that does it for you".
>
> That only works for most users if the things you're trying
I went to the trouble of buying a copy of WordPerfect Office 2002
a while ago, and just tried installing it again - but
I seem to have lost disc 1. Anyone have a copy they're
not using anymore? I have disc 2 and a serial number,
just no disc 1 :-(
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
>> Their reply is probably "well, then do another stable release.
>> Our policy is that we prefer to bundle only stable releases."
>
> We should at least try! From what I've seen, Ubuntu like bleeding-edge
> stuff that likes to break other things,
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Remco wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to
>> have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software
>> sources. (See http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration )
>> Scripts a
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Dylan Smith wrote:
>> Say, have we considered making riched20 prefer native?
>> That makes the app work, too.
>
> A couple of things to note, in case they are relevant:
> 1. msftedit currently uses the native version by default
> 2. builtin msftedit will not work w
How embarrassing! Having to revoke my new (9 days old) gpg key
0x4C40A6D9. Yes, that was a big part of the passphrase for that key in
the CC field ...
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: A revocation certificate should follow
iH4EIBECAD4FAkmocts3HQJTZ
2009/2/28 Dan Kegel :
>>> Another way around this, as Scott Ritchie pointed out, is
>>> to arrange for what's in Ubuntu to be less stale. However,
>>> there are only two ways to do that: either do a stable
>>> release more often (which is difficult, and which Alexandre
>>> doesn't seem inclined to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Say, have we considered making riched20 prefer native?
> That makes the app work, too.
>
A couple of things to note, in case they are relevant:
1. msftedit currently uses the native version by default
2. builtin msftedit will not work with nati
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Klein wrote:
> 2009/2/28 Remco :
>> Oh, I see. You mean that the package manager prefers the local
>> repository if all else is equal. That's solvable by bumping the
>> version number of the package that you download from the site. So, in
>> 'pseudo-versions',
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to
> have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software
> sources. (See http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration )
> Scripts are right out, though. It has to be a package,
> beca
2009/2/28 Remco :
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
>> Except that the first package would be technically outside of the
>> repository, and would have the same version as the one in the
>> repository. This COULD make the package manager think there's an
>> update that needs to b
2009/2/28 Remco :
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Ben Klein wrote:
>> Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the
>> packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package
>> manager can think that the version from the repository should replace
>> the l
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Ben Klein wrote:
> Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the
> packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package
> manager can think that the version from the repository should replace
> the locally-installed version
2009/2/28 Alexandre Julliard :
> Ben Klein writes:
>
>> I don't see a 1.0.2 being developed though. I'm sure there are still a
>> lot of bugs that could be fixed in 1.0.1 - correct me if I'm wrong
>> here.
>
> I don't see a lot of bugs that could be fixed by changes small enough to
> go into the s
Ben Klein writes:
> I don't see a 1.0.2 being developed though. I'm sure there are still a
> lot of bugs that could be fixed in 1.0.1 - correct me if I'm wrong
> here.
I don't see a lot of bugs that could be fixed by changes small enough to
go into the stable branch. If you do, please build a li
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
> Except that the first package would be technically outside of the
> repository, and would have the same version as the one in the
> repository. This COULD make the package manager think there's an
> update that needs to be downloaded when it doe
2009/2/28 Remco :
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to
>> have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software
>> sources. (See http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration )
>> Scripts are right out, though. It has
2009/2/28 Alexandre Julliard :
> Ben Klein writes:
>
>> Maybe someone should tell them that 1.0.1 is "broken" compared to
>> latest development release. This isn't untrue - 1.1.15 has better
>> success with a lot of apps.
>>
>> Basically, someone should tell them that Wine's "stable" branch is
>>
Ben Klein writes:
> Maybe someone should tell them that 1.0.1 is "broken" compared to
> latest development release. This isn't untrue - 1.1.15 has better
> success with a lot of apps.
>
> Basically, someone should tell them that Wine's "stable" branch is
> just a code freeze, and has nothing to d
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
>> That's a fine attitude from the developer's point of view,
>> but that means that Wine *doesn't care* about Ubuntu
>> users who expect to be able to use Wine by doing
>> "add/remove" in the system menu.
>>
>> And I think we do care.
>
> No more
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
> 2009/2/28 Dan Kegel :
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
> >> 2009/2/26 Dan Kegel :
> >>> Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's
> >>> browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists.
> >>> This will s
2009/2/28 Dan Kegel :
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
>> 2009/2/26 Dan Kegel :
>>> Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's
>>> browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists.
>>> This will seriously confuse newcomers who are using
>>> the 1.0.1 version (
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ben Klein wrote:
> 2009/2/26 Dan Kegel :
>> Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's
>> browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists.
>> This will seriously confuse newcomers who are using
>> the 1.0.1 version (e.g. anybody who installs a f
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> The version of the native dll, compared to the builtin. I could imagine
> a heuristic where if the major version of native is higher than builtin
> you default to native or something like that.
I've updated http://bugs.winehq.org/show_b
That's a nice, simple design, but something's missing.
Oddly, the original drunken penguin shirts, or ripoffs thereof, seem
to still be available at
http://www.ixsoft.de/software/products/CWTSHIRTDP-L.html
Original artwork is at
ftp://wine.codeweavers.com/pub/wine/logos/
I would kind of like a s
Now that we support building 16 bit executables,
it seems like a good time to think about integrating
the 16 bit test suite, currently hibernating at
http://win16test.googlecode.com
Any takers?
Francois Gouget wrote:
> ---
>
> winetest can detect if twain_32.dll is there or not, and if it's missing
> there's nothing to test anyway. Note that make_makefiles will need to be
> run.
This patch breaks make crosstest for me:
[apevia:~/w/wine/dlls/twain_32/tests] make crosstest
i586-mingw32
And, my patch [1/2] is wrong. Dmitry's patch is right.
Additionally, my patch [2/2] has to committed. Because of the other
problem. It's also my mistake.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17218#c18
2009-02-27 (Fri), 21:50 +0900, Byeongsik Jeon wrote:
> Yes!!! See the http://bugs.winehq.org
On Do, 2009-02-26 at 10:50 +0100, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> +state = 0xdeadbee;
> +action = 0xdeadbee;
> +r = MsiGetFeatureState(hpkg, "one", &state, &action);
> +ok( r == ERROR_UNKNOWN_FEATURE, "Expected ERROR_UNKNOWN_FEATURE,
> got %d\n", r );
> +ok( state == 0xdeadbee, "Expecte
Yes!!! See the http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17218
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-February/068752.html
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-February/068753.html
2009-02-27 (Fri), 17:57 +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> It was not a very nice idea to bre
I saw the previous Wine t-shirt, with the drunken penguin, but it wasn't
really me and I don't think there are anymore anyways. For those of you
who didn't know about it, I don't think it was advertised very well
(maybe we should have had a products tab or links in World Wine News more
regularly).
Am Freitag, den 27.02.2009, 17:57 +0800 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov:
> It was not a very nice idea to break bitmap fonts which request a custom
> width (therefore a transformation) in a patch that pretended to do something
> unrelated.
It also "breaks" fake italic bitmap fonts, i.e. previously the fak
33 matches
Mail list logo
