"Dimi Paun" wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 11:59 -0600, John Klehm wrote:
I wouldn't really want per save captcha either, per account creation
is what I was hoping would cut down the spam. If the accounts are
created manually not much we can do about it :(
I think that's the case. Which is wh
Dan Kegel wrote:
> Paul Bryan Roberts write:
>
>> The code as it stands creates makefiles with a mode of 600. This may be
>> benign on most (e.g. personal workstation) installations but not all.
>>
>> An example is where the wine git repository is located on an NFS
>> volume. Here security set
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard
> wrote:
>
>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>>
>>
>>> i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
>>> priorities. "technically correctly fulfilling the semantics" i w
2009/3/5 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard
> wrote:
>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>>
>>> i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
>>> priorities. "technically correctly fulfilling the semantics" i would
>>>
So y'all can have a warm fuzzy feeling today:
-- Forwarded message --
From: lodewig
Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Subject: [Wine] COMPLIMENT TO WINE STAFF
To: wine-us...@winehq.org
Installed Metatrader 4 under Wine 1.1.16 , Ubuntu 8.10 , no any
problem . Used it for hours
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>>> how would you envisage doing client-side SMB named pipes?
>>
>> By doing the I/O through the wineserver. It has all the necessary
>> mechanisms already.
>
> ok - great. whereabouts? which ones? any existing examples? which
> existing code in wineserver u
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>
>> i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
>> priorities. "technically correctly fulfilling the semantics" i would
>> imagine would be the highest priority.
>>
>> "eff
>> how would you envisage doing client-side SMB named pipes?
>
> By doing the I/O through the wineserver. It has all the necessary
> mechanisms already.
ok - great. whereabouts? which ones? any existing examples? which
existing code in wineserver utilises the existing mechanisms to which
you ref
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For whatever reason Win95 was always failing this test with i greater than 5
> and
> now it's less than 5 (since yesterday!). This will crash as the rest of the
> tests rely on that exact number (we have 5 files/directories in our
> test
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 11:59 -0600, John Klehm wrote:
> I wouldn't really want per save captcha either, per account creation
> is what I was hoping would cut down the spam. If the accounts are
> created manually not much we can do about it :(
I think that's the case. Which is why I think it's not
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Julliard
> wrote:
>> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>>
>>> so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
>>> "proxy" is an effective solution?
>>
>> No, you are on the wrong track. That
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> i would imagine that inefficient is the _last_ thing on the list of
> priorities. "technically correctly fulfilling the semantics" i would
> imagine would be the highest priority.
>
> "efficient" and "nice" can always be done later, yes?
No, in many case
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dimi Paun wrote:
>
> And if we don't implement captchas for saves (which I personally would
> hate but maybe others would be OK with it), I'm not sure it would save
> us all that much spam to begin with, as spammer do create accounts
> manually and the captchas wou
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>
>> so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
>> "proxy" is an effective solution?
>
> No, you are on the wrong track. That solution is ugly, inefficient, and
i would imagi
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
>
>> so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
>> "proxy" is an effective solution?
>
> No, you are on the wrong track. That solution is ugly, inefficient, and
> it doesn't he
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
+if ( !lpcchSize ) {
+SetLastError(ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER);
+return FALSE;
+SetLastError(ERROR_MORE_DATA);
+}
+}
+}
+else
+
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 21:32 -0600, John Klehm wrote:
> Luckily it seems MoinMoin has a feature that provides exactly this:
> http://moinmo.in/TextCha
>
> However on that page it only mentions a challenge question for commits
> which wasn't quite what I wanted so I took a look at the source for
>
2009/3/4 Andreas Rosenberg
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with you opinion.
>
> A conformance test should verify if an API call works like documented.
>
> The MSDN documentation specifies nothing regarding error codes for
> GetUserProfileDirectory.
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb762280(
Austin English writes:
> Is there any intention to add that in the near future? Or should I
> file a bug? That's currently the only compiler warning on FreeBSD
> (which is the first we've had in a while)...
I'm not planning to add it, that's why there is a warning, to encourage
someone else to d
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Austin English writes:
>
>> AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
>> where this function is not used.
>
> That's on purpose, the function is supposed to be used on other
> platforms too.
Is there any intentio
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> Andreas Rosenberg wrote:
>
> +if ( !lpcchSize ) {
> +SetLastError(ERROR_INVALID_PARAMETER);
> +return FALSE;
>
>
> +SetLastError(ERROR_MORE_DATA);
> +}
> +}
> +}
> +else
> +Set
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Austin English wrote:
>
>> AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
>> where this function is not used.
>>
>> Resending with a proper extension.
>
> Why does your patch modify dlls/ntdll/virtual.c
I don't understand Wine's named pipe or completion implementations,
but I can at least explain what the test is observing.
http://test.winehq.org/data/566cb8c7a32f6128ae7d05f7fab30db08ba64ea4/wine_ae-ub-904-heap/kernel32:pipe.html
ConnectNamedPipe is setting ERROR_ALREADY_CONNECTED, but it's als
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton writes:
> so - what do people think? would you agree that a user-space pipe
> "proxy" is an effective solution?
No, you are on the wrong track. That solution is ugly, inefficient, and
it doesn't help anything since the wineserver constraints that you are
trying to a
The two changes are independent so they should be in separate patches.
About afxres.h vs. winres.h vs. winresrc.h, I believe it's mostly
IDC_STATIC that was needed from winres.h. Unfortunately it's not being
defined anywhere these days. In fact, all the Microsoft samples define
it themselves.
Austin English writes:
> AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
> where this function is not used.
That's on purpose, the function is supposed to be used on other
platforms too.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Paul Vriens writes:
> But why suddenly? I hate it when something like that happens.
For the winehq.org builds that's most likely because the Debian updates
brought in a new MinGW.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens :
> Reece Dunn wrote:
>> 2009/3/4 Paul Vriens :
>>>
>>> We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for
>>> advapi32:security :
>>>
>>> security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
>>
>> 998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- "Invalid access to memory locat
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Austin English wrote:
> AJ's recent work in this area caused a warning on non-Linux OS's,
> where this function is not used.
>
> Resending with a proper extension.
Why does your patch modify dlls/ntdll/virtual.c? It seems to me that
this should be separate.
--
Francois Gou
Reece Dunn wrote:
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens :
Hi,
We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for advapi32:security :
security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- "Invalid access to memory location."
Google
(http://www.google.co.uk/sea
2009/3/4 Paul Vriens :
> Hi,
>
> We suddenly have a new test failure on NT4 and above for advapi32:security :
>
> security.c:1202: Test failed: GetTokenInformation failed with error 998
998 = ERROR_NOACCESS -- "Invalid access to memory location."
Google
(http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ERROR_NO
31 matches
Mail list logo
