-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Peddell wrote:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>> You should most likely set the group permissions too in that case.
I have re-submitted, this time setting group mode according to the
permission set of the user's groups.
I forgot to unmask the group
Paul Chitescu wrote:
> Unfortunately in RPM based distros that use side-by-side multiarch libraries
> (as opposed to chroot) it's not possible to have multiple architecture devel
> version of most (if not all) packages.
Then how am I doing Wine development for the past 2 years on 64-bit rpm
based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Peddell wrote:
> I think we'd need to implement a security_sid_to_unix_uid function (and
> re-implement the security_unix_uid_to_sid function to complement it) to
> be able to do that properly.
Sorry - that should be security_sid_to_unix_gid and
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "Ben Peddell" writes:
>
>> @@ -474,7 +475,9 @@ mode_t sd_to_mode( const struct security_descriptor *sd,
>> const SID *owner )
>> if (access & FILE_EXECUTE)
>> denied_m
2009/12/10 Stefan Dösinger :
> @@ -6304,7 +6304,7 @@ HRESULT create_primary_opengl_context(IWineD3DDevice
> *iface, IWineD3DSwapChain *
...
> -swapchain->context[0]->render_offscreen = swapchain->render_to_fbo;
> +swapchain->context[0]->render_offscreen = surface_is_offscreen(target);
This
On 10/12/09 18:46, Paul Chitescu wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009 08:37:22 pm Alex Villacís Lasso wrote:
I have just updated my setup to Fedora 12 on 64 bits, and I want to
compile Wine for this setup. I followed the instructions at:
http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOn64bit on the section for
On 12/10/2009 07:46 PM, Paul Chitescu wrote:
On Thursday 10 December 2009 08:37:22 pm Alex Villacís Lasso wrote:
I have just updated my setup to Fedora 12 on 64 bits, and I want to
compile Wine for this setup. I followed the instructions at:
http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOn64bit on the section for
> The timeout mentioned in [1] is in waiting for WM_ENDSESSION to
> return. This wait and timeout is handled by
> send_messages_with_timeout_dialog. However, once that message has
> returned, the process has done all the cleanup it needs and should be
> terminated. Since Windows terminates processe
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Juan Lang wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> -/* wait for app to quit on its own for a while */
> -ret = WaitForSingleObject( process_handle, PROCQUIT_TIMEOUT );
> +/* Check whether the app quit on its own */
> +ret = WaitForSingleObject( process_handle, 0 );
Hi Vincent,
-/* wait for app to quit on its own for a while */
-ret = WaitForSingleObject( process_handle, PROCQUIT_TIMEOUT );
+/* Check whether the app quit on its own */
+ret = WaitForSingleObject( process_handle, 0 );
CloseHandle( process_handle );
if (ret == WAIT_TIME
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:51 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
>> I was wondering why you were getting so many msi test failures and
>> errors! Now I know. Yes, the msi tests can't be run in parallel,
>> even on windows.
>
> What if I use a different ms
On Thursday 10 December 2009 08:37:22 pm Alex Villacís Lasso wrote:
> I have just updated my setup to Fedora 12 on 64 bits, and I want to
> compile Wine for this setup. I followed the instructions at:
> http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOn64bit on the section for Fedora 12.
> However, I have the follo
I have just updated my setup to Fedora 12 on 64 bits, and I want to
compile Wine for this setup. I followed the instructions at:
http://wiki.winehq.org/WineOn64bit on the section for Fedora 12.
However, I have the following error when trying to install the packages
as directed by the wiki:
Er
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:51 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
>> Some of the remaining reported errors in msi are probably my
>> fault - I'm running them in parallel.
> I was wondering why you were getting so many msi test failures and
> errors! Now I know. Yes, the msi tests can't be run in parallel,
>
Am 10.12.2009 um 17:22 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> Well, the patch has been committed but the ok() message looks a bit strange
> now. Do you think it makes sense to change getdc_capable to a HRESULT and do
> something like the following instead:
>
> ok(hr == testdata[i].result ||
> testdata[i].alt
On 12/09/2009 03:30 AM, Jaime Rave wrote:
+LANGUAGE LANG_SPANISH, SUBLANG_DEFAULT
Hi,
Shouldn't this one need a SUBLANG_NEUTRAL instead? Or is this
translation specific to "Spanish (Traditional Sort)"?
See also:
http://wiki.winehq.org/SublangNeutral
--
Cheers,
Paul.
On 12/10/2009 05:08 PM, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
Am 10.12.2009 um 16:19 schrieb Paul Vriens:
I'm not saying it's common practice in the code but we have multiple of these
structs where the last one(s) is not set.
Ok
Well, the patch has been committed but the ok() message looks a bit
strange
Am 10.12.2009 um 16:19 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> I'm not saying it's common practice in the code but we have multiple of these
> structs where the last one(s) is not set.
Ok
On 12/10/2009 04:04 PM, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
Am 10.12.2009 um 13:21 schrieb Paul Vriens:
<0004-Fix-some-test-failures-on-Vista.patch>
const char *name;
DDPIXELFORMAT fmt;
BOOL getdc_capable;
+HRESULT alt_result;
} testdata[] = {
You are setting t
Maarten Lankhorst writes:
> @@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright 2009 Tony Wasserka
Who wrote this code then?
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Am 10.12.2009 um 13:21 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> <0004-Fix-some-test-failures-on-Vista.patch>
> const char *name;
> DDPIXELFORMAT fmt;
> BOOL getdc_capable;
> +HRESULT alt_result;
> } testdata[] = {
You are setting the alt_result only for the 4 failing tests. I
"Ben Peddell" writes:
> @@ -474,7 +475,9 @@ mode_t sd_to_mode( const struct security_descriptor *sd,
> const SID *owner )
> if (access & FILE_EXECUTE)
> denied_mode |= S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH;
> }
> -e
Hi Detlef,
Detlef Riekenberg schreef:
On Mi, 2009-12-09 at 16:57 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
+{
+/* FIXME: Still a memory leak.. */
This should be fixed before sending to wine-patches
The original code had no way to handle it, and msdn doesn't mention how
to handle
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:51 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
> I was wondering why you were getting so many msi test failures and
> errors! Now I know. Yes, the msi tests can't be run in parallel,
> even on windows.
What if I use a different msi database for each test? That'd be easy.
Otherwise I'll
Am 10.12.2009 um 09:57 schrieb Paul Vriens:
> On 09/05/2009 04:54 PM, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
>> This patch uses a d3d9-side filter in favor of adding a 2nd set of
>> getdc-capable format flags.
>>
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> These tests have failures on Vista+ boxes:
>
> dsurface.c:3243: Test failed:
On Mi, 2009-12-09 at 16:57 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> +{
> +/* FIXME: Still a memory leak.. */
This should be fixed before sending to wine-patches
--
By by ... Detlef
On Do, 2009-12-10 at 01:15 +0100, Jacek Caban wrote:
> +func = new Function();
> +tmp = func();
> +ok(tmp === undefined, "func(1,3,2) = " + tmp)
Greetings from Copy & Paste
--
By by ... Detlef
On 09/05/2009 04:54 PM, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
This patch uses a d3d9-side filter in favor of adding a 2nd set of
getdc-capable format flags.
Hi Stefan,
These tests have failures on Vista+ boxes:
dsurface.c:3243: Test failed: GetDC on a D3DFMT_X8B8G8R8 surface
failed(0x88760249), expected i
28 matches
Mail list logo
