re: Remove NoAppDBEntry keyword?

Jerome Leclanche wrote: > Austin English wrote: >> Anyone opposed to removing that keyword? > > +1 on removing it. > It would be nice to have a bugzilla filter to replace it, too. > > Are we keeping "tasklist" and "tasklet" keywords as well? theres > barely a dozen very old bugs for both of them.

Re: What to do when un-nominating bugs for 1.2

Dan Kegel wrote: > Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4 > if they're not going to be fixed for 1.2? At least simple explanation for why bugs were un-nominated from 1.2 would have been great. Half of bugs had no explanation whatsoever. Vitaliy.

Re: Another article that makes me want Wine to run in a sandbox

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 03:55, Dan Kegel wrote: > On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 3:40 PM, James McKenzie > wrote: >> You really underestimate the stupidity of people. > > I expect that people will do utterly stupid things, > there's no two ways around that, it's human nature. > That being the case, I thin

Re: What to do when un-nominating bugs for 1.2

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Jeremy White wrote: > Alexandre expressed a preference that the bugs not be auto rolled to 1.4; > he'd rather we deliberately chose bugs to go into 1.4.   So when we >  un-nominated, we were intentionally returning bugs to the larger pool. OK. > We were trying an

Re: What to do when un-nominating bugs for 1.2

Hey Dan, Dan Kegel wrote: In the gcc world, when a bug is targeted for release X and doesn't make it in time, it is retargeted for release X+1. So when 1.0 rolled around, I retargeted the leftover 1.0-targeted bugs at 1.2. Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4 if they're

Re: Another article that makes me want Wine to run in a sandbox

2009/11/8 Dan Kegel : > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Ben Klein wrote: >> I believe the type of sandboxing being discussed includes things like >> preventing Win32 apps from breaking out into native calls using the >> infamous interrupt trick. Correct me if I'm wrong though :) > No, I was thin

What to do when un-nominating bugs for 1.2

In the gcc world, when a bug is targeted for release X and doesn't make it in time, it is retargeted for release X+1. So when 1.0 rolled around, I retargeted the leftover 1.0-targeted bugs at 1.2. Can we do the same this time, and retarget 1.2 bugs for 1.4 if they're not going to be fixed for 1.2

Re: Another article that makes me want Wine to run in a sandbox

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Ben Klein wrote: > I believe the type of sandboxing being discussed includes things like > preventing Win32 apps from breaking out into native calls using the > infamous interrupt trick. Correct me if I'm wrong though :) No, I was thinking of native sandboxing, so

Re: The user32/win test crashes X on Intel cards

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Francois Gouget wrote: [...] > Here's my configuration: > * Intel Corporation Mobile 945GME Express Integrated Graphics Controller rev > 3 > * VideoRAM: 256MB (according to /var/log/Xorg.0.log) > * xserver-xorg-video-intel 2:2.9.0-1 >Latest from Debian Testing. >Debi

Re: The user32/win test crashes X on Intel cards

Francois Gouget wrote: > I hit this issue while trying to run winetest for WineConf. I looked > into it and the crash is caused by this line in dlls/user32/tests/win.c: > >SetWindowPos(hwnd, 0, 32768, 4, 32768, 4, SWP_NOMOVE); > > More precisely it's the setting of the window width a

Re: d3d9: quiet a few very noisy fixme's

Am 08.11.2009 um 13:28 schrieb Austin English: On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Louis Lenders wrote: These are spawned at huge rate in World in Conflict demo (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4) It'd be quicker/cleaner to just change them to warn's instead, IMHO. I think BeginEvent

Re: d3d9: quiet a few very noisy fixme's

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Louis Lenders wrote: > These are spawned at huge rate in World in Conflict demo > (http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4) It'd be quicker/cleaner to just change them to warn's instead, IMHO. -- -Austin

Re: Another article that makes me want Wine to run in a sandbox

2009/11/8 David Gerard : > You'd get good sandboxing running Wine apps as another user. Main > problem then is integration with the user's desktop. Doable, but a > nuisance. Not really. A separate Wine user wouldn't prevent people from running Wine as root incorrectly, and if you integrate it with

The user32/win test crashes X on Intel cards

I hit this issue while trying to run winetest for WineConf. I looked into it and the crash is caused by this line in dlls/user32/tests/win.c: SetWindowPos(hwnd, 0, 32768, 4, 32768, 4, SWP_NOMOVE); More precisely it's the setting of the window width and height to 32768 x 4 that c

Re: Another article that makes me want Wine to run in a sandbox

2009/11/8 Dan Kegel : > I expect that people will do utterly stupid things, > there's no two ways around that, it's human nature. > That being the case, I think there are still opportunities > for providing a safe computing experience without > compromising the user's convenience. > Case in point:

Re: [PATCH] rpcrt4: compare networkoptions correctly (Coverity) (adjusted)

2009/11/8 Marcus Meissner : > @@ -84,6 +84,17 @@ static RPC_STATUS RpcAssoc_Alloc(LPCSTR Protseq, LPCSTR > NetworkAddr, >     return RPC_S_OK; >  } > > +static BOOL compare_networkoptions(LPCWSTR opts1, LPCWSTR opts2) > +{ > +    if ((opts1 == NULL) && (opts2 == NULL)) > +        return TRUE; > +