Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's wrong with having lots of them? They don't conflict and
> realistically there are a few people use a lot (WINEDEBUG,
> WINEDLLOVERRIDES) and the rest (WINEPREFIX, WINEDLLPATH etc) are used only
> occasionally or only by scripts.
It adds complexity,
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:00:41 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Frankly I don't think we want yet another environment variable, we
> have already way too many of them.
What's wrong with having lots of them? They don't conflict and
realistically there are a few people use a lot (WINEDEBUG,
WINEDLLO
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah I thought about that, but to be honest the only reason to have this
> is pure convenience - the more typing required the less convenient it is.
> I never, ever set the DOS version. It's always either win9x vs win2k for
> me, so saving a few characters
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:05:47 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> I'm afraid I don't like the naming, since it's potentially confusing
> (plus, it somewhat goes against established rules, "WINE + function").
> What about WINEWINVER instead? I for one like it much more.
> Also, this doesn't take into accoun
Hi,
I'm afraid I don't like the naming, since it's potentially confusing
(plus, it somewhat goes against established rules, "WINE + function").
What about WINEWINVER instead? I for one like it much more.
Also, this doesn't take into account that we're also able to set the
DOS version. So what woul
