On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:24:45 -0300, Svyatoslav Kuzmich
wrote:
Hello dear Wine mailing list!
I've found that Wine dbghelp.dll includes PDB file parser. Does anyone
know where I can find documentation of PDB internal structure?
http://undocumented.rawol.com/
May have parts of the inf
Svyatoslav wrote:
> I've found that Wine dbghelp.dll includes PDB file parser. Does anyone
> know where I can find documentation of PDB internal structure?
I think you've found it :-)
As you probably know, PDB is an undocumented format.
I suspect the best you can find are scat
2011/10/1 Dan Kegel :
> + * We can't use the native f* functions because of the filename
> syntax differences
> + * between DOS and Unix.
>
> That doesn't belong in a function comment; it's
> an implementation detail that belongs, at most,
> inside the function.
Yeah true. I simply copied it over
+ * We can't use the native f* functions because of the filename
syntax differences
+ * between DOS and Unix.
That doesn't belong in a function comment; it's
an implementation detail that belongs, at most,
inside the function.
I recommend writing unit tests to answer the open questions.
Thanks,
James
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Thu, 13 May 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Would you feel more comfortable leaving the documentation as is and
>> me just sug
Hi James,
On Thu, 13 May 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Would you feel more comfortable leaving the documentation as is and
> me just suggesting the following?
>
> if(strchrW(str_flags,'I'))
> hr = do_ocx_reg(hm, TRUE);
>
> to replace
&g
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Octavian Voicu wrote:
> They are not used anymore. Last change was with the release of wine 1.0.
> Sent as attachment because of the huge lines.
Alexandre,
This patch was sent before I got your reply on wine-devel, so you can ignore it.
Probably was in the moderat
On 03/06/2011 02:45 PM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
What's a point to make such changes in a first place? I don't see how
it's useful to have automatically extracted partially filled function
names from sources (if it's a purpose of these documentation headers of
course). You
ly filled function
names from sources (if it's a purpose of these documentation headers of
course). You always have sources, everything that might be useful for
development is in as code or comments for not-so-obvious parts.
What is really helpful for documenting behaviour that isn'
On 03/06/2011 10:34 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
Hi Max,
+ *
http://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows/win32/ntdll/history/names40.htm
Please don't link to his site. As I said in an unrelated message to
wine-patches last week, he used disassembly when performing his
analysis:
http://www.geoffchapp
Hi Max,
+ *
http://www.geoffchappell.com/studies/windows/win32/ntdll/history/names40.htm
Please don't link to his site. As I said in an unrelated message to
wine-patches last week, he used disassembly when performing his
analysis:
http://www.geoffchappell.com/viewer.htm?doc=notes/index.htm
I w
m...@mtew.isa-geek.net writes:
> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ int CDECL MSVCRT__chdir(const char * newdir)
> /*
> * _wchdir (MSVCRT.@)
> *
> - * Unicode version of _chdir.
> + * Unicode version of MSVCRT__chdir.
You don't w
I've been going through the Wine API documentation and there seem to be
some things that I think should be changed:
- There are references to Wine documents that do not include links to
the pages. The links should be included.
- Some 'implementation' sections claim that
In the documentation directory, there are ChangeLog.ALPHA,
ChangeLog.BETA and ChangeLog.OLD.
Are these files still useful (most recent entry is dated 2008-06-16)?
Or are they simply kept as a log of the good old pre-git days?
Frédéric
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Peter Davies wrote:
> I think the speed and freedom provided by wiki is more important than
> vetting. Most problems would be due to vandalism (easily reverted),
> people will keep an eye on Recent Changes. If the problem is
> overwhelming, we will make editing pr
James McKenzie wrote:
James McKenzie wrote:
James McKenzie wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
All:
Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using
this
James McKenzie wrote:
James McKenzie wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
All:
Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using
this commnd.
Thank you
James McKenzie wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
All:
Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using this commnd.
Thank you.
There are
> I don't know about the 'respectability' of SF, but I'm more concerned with
> the content and who gets to change it. There are folks that may decide to
> enter incorrect or even bogus information. I would like it if all added
> information that is not already present in the Wine API be vetted
ame problems a lot of time. I still don't know what
GetCursorFrameInfo does, and I have a hunch that it might be useful in
doing a proper animated cursor implementation.
> Quoting Alexandre's response:
> "That's what the source code and test cases are for. If you rely on th
need anything listed above.
Quoting Alexandre's response:
"That's what the source code and test cases are for. If you rely on the
function documentation you are in trouble anyway, nobody bothers to
update it when new behaviors are discovered."
--
Dmitry.
Vitaliy Margolen wrote:
On 06/30/2010 09:22 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
1) Would including the URL of the MSDN article be useful/a good idea?
No. Microsoft in all these years haven't figured out how to create permanent
links. All, and I really mean it _ALL_ URLS on MSDN had changed
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
I created the top page as a table and populated it with all the
directory entries in the 'dll' directory. Somebody immediately deleted
it. WTF?
Creating a MSDN clone does not belong to the Wine project.
Dmitry:
I think you com
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Octavian Voicu wrote:
>
> PS: there are other resources except MSDN; for example, osronline.com
> has very good documentation for windows driver developers, including
> some undocumented APIs.
>
I don't know if this is worth mentioning or
nux. There is
enough to do already (kernel, system dlls, many many libraries,
installer, directx, command line tools, various programs and tools,
testing infrastructure, translations, etc), if we spread ourselves too
thin we won't get anywhere with anything.
Imho there are very few cases in w
Am 01.07.2010 19:26, schrieb Peter Davies:
>> My primary concern here is
>> participation
I think http://wiki.jswindle.com would also be a good place if he would
cooperate...
BTW: we should slowly come to an end with that discussion on wine-devel IMO
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
On 07/01/2010 04:34 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
I created the top page as a table and populated it with all the
directory entries in the 'dll' directory. Somebody immediately deleted
it. WTF?
Creating a MSDN clone does not belong to the Wine project.
> My primary concern here is
> participation
Count me in! I think it would be a great way to learn the wine/windows
internals.
Peter
participation it will
> never grow to the magnitude that's necessary for it to be a helpful
> resource. So, I guess I'm saying that if there's at least some chance
> of embedding URLs in the source that will direct people to this
> documentation then I'd feel muc
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
> Max TenEyck Woodbury writes:
>
> > So, would it be OK with you to extract the current documentation and
> > put it in the wiki where it can be more easily maintained? Wikis are
> > supposed to be good for
Max TenEyck Woodbury writes:
> So, would it be OK with you to extract the current documentation and
> put it in the wiki where it can be more easily maintained? Wikis are
> supposed to be good for exactly that kind of thing.
>
> Once the wiki is populated with the initial infor
On 06/30/2010 09:22 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> 1) Would including the URL of the MSDN article be useful/a good idea?
No. Microsoft in all these years haven't figured out how to create permanent
links. All, and I really mean it _ALL_ URLS on MSDN had changed at least
once a year.
> 2) Would
On 06/30/2010 03:13 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Erich Hoover writes:
Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going
to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit
from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API
document
Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
> I created the top page as a table and populated it with all the
> directory entries in the 'dll' directory. Somebody immediately deleted
> it. WTF?
Creating a MSDN clone does not belong to the Wine project.
--
Dmitry.
On 06/30/2010 03:43 PM, Erich Hoover wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie
wrote:
...
How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status. That way
we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled across
something in my latest Richedi
I've been reading the Wine code and noticed that some of the external
interfaces are practically undocumented. I did a web search on some of
the names and found descriptions in MSDN.
I realize that copying the information from MSDN directly into the code
is a poor idea (like copyright violati
Erich Hoover wrote:
>Sent: Jun 30, 2010 12:43 PM
>To: James Mckenzie
>Cc: Alexandre Julliard , Max TenEyck Woodbury
>, wine-devel@winehq.org
>Subject: Re: (Resent) Documentation - Reference to MSDN?
>
>On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie
> wrote:
>>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:36 PM, James Mckenzie
wrote:
> ...
> How about some place on the Wiki along with an implementation status. That
> way we can also annotate items that are missing in MSDN (I just re-stumbled
> across something in my latest Richedit tests) as well. This would help
> gr
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>Erich Hoover writes:
>
>> Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going
>> to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit
>> from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated A
On 06/30/2010 03:13 PM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Erich Hoover writes:
Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going
to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit
from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API
document
Erich Hoover writes:
> Alright, well then I won't do it. Is the existing documentation going
> to be stripped at some point? It seems to me like we would benefit
> from more-detailed function descriptions in the auto-generated API
> documentation. I think it would save a lo
, but if Alexandre is ok with
>> documentation-only patches then this is something I'm tempted to jump
>> on (in the areas where I have sufficient familiarity) when I have some
>> more free time.
>
> I'm not OK with it. If you want to start a project to document the
> Wi
Erich Hoover writes:
> Personally, I think that it would be really good to do a better job of
> documenting the API functions (particularly edge cases). I'm
> currently very busy with work, but if Alexandre is ok with
> documentation-only patches then this is something I'
Juan Lang:
Of course one of the reasons to add documentation is precisely
because the information on MSDN is less than perfect. Having a good
interface definition makes things easier. I'm still in the process of
learning how to submit patches. These would be low risk but useful
changes so
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
>
> ...
> A more general response: I'm not sure that a lot of documentation
> patches will be accepted. MSDN has to be considered the definitive
> resource for the Windows API. It's often incorrect, of course, and
>
No. MSDN is in the habit of changing its URLs all too frequently.
For what it's worth, while MSDN seems to like changing its URLs a lot,
it does seem to be quite good at maintaining forwarders for the old URLs
- most API documentation URLs I've randomly found from 5 years ago s
Am 30.06.2010 19:25, schrieb Max TenEyck Woodbury:
> I've been reading the Wine code and noticed that some of the external
> interfaces are practically undocumented. I did a web search on some of
> the names and found descriptions in MSDN.
>
> I realize that copying the information from MSDN direc
Hi Max,
> 1) Would including the URL of the MSDN article be useful/a good idea?
No. MSDN is in the habit of changing its URLs all too frequently.
A more general response: I'm not sure that a lot of documentation
patches will be accepted. MSDN has to be considered the definitive
reso
I've been reading the Wine code and noticed that some of the external
interfaces are practically undocumented. I did a web search on some of
the names and found descriptions in MSDN.
I realize that copying the information from MSDN directly into the code
is a poor idea (like copyright violation)
On Tue, 11 May 2010, James Hawkins wrote:
> I'm very hesitant about this. MSDN has no documentation about
> RegisterOCX, so I'm not sure how you're justifying this change. It's
> been a long time since I worked on this, so I don't remember much, but
>
I'm very hesitant about this. MSDN has no documentation about
RegisterOCX, so I'm not sure how you're justifying this change. It's
been a long time since I worked on this, so I don't remember much, but
I do remember testing this method and documenting the parameters
Luke Benstead writes:
> While on the subject of documentation... would it be a good idea to
> begin documenting functions with something like Doxygen or similar?
> I'm just wondering if we could be building our own, much more
> accurate, MSDN. Is there a reason that Wine isn
> Would documentation-only patches be accepted? For example, I can use
> my lunch break at work to document functions but it's not long enough
> to do any serious hacking. I only ask because I can't remember seeing
> documentation only patches on wine-patches :)
Indeed, yes.
, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Scott Ritchie
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/12/2010 11:01 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>>> As we are getting somehow closer to Wine 1.2 i wonder how important
&
Wine 1.2 i wonder how important
updates on the Documentation are.
Further i am confused about sending patches, should they just
change the
git-repo "docs" or the pages on the website or both?
The website pages are supposed to be automatically generated from
the docs
every release. So patc
the Documentation are.
Further i am confused about sending patches, should they just change the
git-repo "docs" or the pages on the website or both?
The website pages are supposed to be automatically generated from the docs
every release. So patch the docs themselves.
Not sure if th
On 14 March 2010 10:03, Roderick Colenbrander wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> On 03/12/2010 11:01 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>> As we are getting somehow closer to Wine 1.2 i wonder how important
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 11:01 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>> As we are getting somehow closer to Wine 1.2 i wonder how important
>> updates on the Documentation are.
>> Further i am confused about
On 03/12/2010 11:01 AM, André Hentschel wrote:
Hi Folks,
As we are getting somehow closer to Wine 1.2 i wonder how important updates on
the Documentation are.
Further i am confused about sending patches, should they just change the git-repo
"docs" or the pages on the website or bo
Hi Folks,
As we are getting somehow closer to Wine 1.2 i wonder how important updates on
the Documentation are.
Further i am confused about sending patches, should they just change the
git-repo "docs" or the pages on the website or both?
--
Best Regards, André Hentschel
Nikolay Sivov wrote:
> On 1/15/2010 05:31, James McKenzie wrote:
>> James Hawkins wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> All:
>>>>
>>>> Is there documen
On 1/15/2010 05:31, James McKenzie wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
All:
Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using this commnd.
Thank you
James McKenzie wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
All:
Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using this commnd.
Thank you.
There are
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
> wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
>>
>> I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using this commnd.
&g
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:19 PM, James McKenzie
wrote:
> All:
>
> Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
>
> I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using this commnd.
>
> Thank you.
>
There are thousands and thousands of exampl
All:
Is there documentation anywhere on how to use the TRACE command?
I am trying to print out the contents of a UNICODE string using this commnd.
Thank you.
James McKenzie
2009/4/1 Fred . :
> I saw on http://www.winehq.org/status/wine
> That there Nonexistent documentation for "Initial directory structure"
> and Poor documentation for "Initial INI files".
>
> So I wrote documentation for those on the wiki.
> http://wiki.winehq.
I saw on http://www.winehq.org/status/wine
That there Nonexistent documentation for "Initial directory structure"
and Poor documentation for "Initial INI files".
So I wrote documentation for those on the wiki.
http://wiki.winehq.org/Initial_directory_structure
ht
Hello Wine Developers,
Besides the winedbg --gdb mode, I found a way to run gdb directly
on wine. I figured all or part of this text file I'm included could be
appended to section 1.8 of the Wine documentation where other
debuggers are discussed.
Thanks,
Andrew Look
This debugging docume
Please don't apply. I should have removed the WINAPI when making the
function static. I'll resend a patch.
> diff --git a/dlls/shell32/pidl.c b/dlls/shell32/pidl.c
> index 5f26265..2792bc6 100644
> --- a/dlls/shell32/pidl.c
> +++ b/dlls/shell32/pidl.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static LPWSTR _ILGetTex
"Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Henri Verbeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2008/9/27 Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> And while we're on the subject, is "make depend" really
>>> needed anymore? I thought it happened automatically.
>>
>> It does.
>
> G
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Henri Verbeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/27 Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> And while we're on the subject, is "make depend" really
>> needed anymore? I thought it happened automatically.
>
> It does.
Great. So can we get rid of all the doc that tells
2008/9/27 Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> And while we're on the subject, is "make depend" really
> needed anymore? I thought it happened automatically.
>
It does. You don't generally need "make install" either, you can just
run from whatever place you built Wine.
And while we're on the subject, is "make depend" really
needed anymore? I thought it happened automatically.
source directory says to run:
./tools/wineinstall
Which is the preferred method? Is there any difference? I'm thinking the
docs in one of those two places probably needs to be updated.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Compiling-WINE-from-source---Documentation-needs-
Francois Gouget wrote:
> +/*
> + * GdipSetEmptye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> + */
>
Typo here.
ntical,
> and the new names are the ones used by the hardware documentation.
The problem is that you are introducing things not existing in PSDK.
--
Dmitry.
"John Reiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> diff --git a/include/winnt.h b/include/winnt.h
> index e8a37f5..ad2f674 100644
> --- a/include/winnt.h
> +++ b/include/winnt.h
> @@ -812,9 +812,24 @@ typedef struct _CONTEXT86
>
> typedef CONTEXT86 CONTEXT;
>
> -#define EXCEPTION_READ_FAULT0
> -#def
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Austin English wrote:
[...]
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Austin English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I've been working on some of the documentation,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Austin English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've been working on some of the documentation, then remembered that
> Scott
> > requested a move to XML:
"Austin English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been working on some of the documentation, then remembered that Scott
> requested a move to XML:
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12217
>
> There are quite a few programs to convert SGML to XML,
I've been working on some of the documentation, then remembered that Scott
requested a move to XML:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12217
There are quite a few programs to convert SGML to XML, and I've got a bit of
time to kill. Alexandre, would you accept a move to XML, or would
While we are on the subject of AVI files: could someone please take a look
at the function IAVIStream_fnWriteData() in avifil32/avifile.c? There is an
unused variable "dwPos" (line 1326), which has been there since this
function was first implemented (2002-10-18), I could just remove this
variable,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Both dlls/mciavi32 and dlls/avifil32 are able to parse and play AVI files.
> I don't think I can use that from quartz though. It uses the
> asyncreader primitives and I don't believe there is such thing as a
> IRiffReader interface. ;-)
There is
Hello Dmitry,
2008/4/11, Dmitry Timoshkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maarten stumbled across what he said was very useful
> > documentation about the AVI file format. For future reference,
> > here it is:
>
"Dan Kegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maarten stumbled across what he said was very useful
> documentation about the AVI file format. For future reference,
> here it is:
> http://sunsson.iptime.org/projects/juliet/wiki/MediaFileFormat
AVI files are just RIFF fi
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maarten stumbled across what he said was very useful
> documentation about the AVI file format. For future reference,
> here it is:
> http://sunsson.iptime.org/projects/juliet/wiki/MediaFileFormat
Sorry
Maarten stumbled across what he said was very useful
documentation about the AVI file format. For future reference,
here it is:
http://sunsson.iptime.org/projects/juliet/wiki/MediaFileFormat
--- On Fri, 4/4/08, Lei Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Lei Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Documentation is still in CVS?
> To: "Hin-Tak Leung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Wine Devel"
> Date: Friday, 4 April, 2008, 6:
--- On Thu, 3/4/08, Lei Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The instructions on http://www.winehq.org/site/cvs works
> for me.
Doesn't work for me:
$ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/wine co -P docs
cvs [checkout aborted]: connect to [wine.cvs.sourceforge.net]:2401 failed:
Connecti
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't work for me:
>
> $ cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/wine co -P docs
> cvs [checkout aborted]: connect to [wine.cvs.sourceforge.net]:2401 failed:
> Connection timed out
>
> $ git cvsimport -C wine-do
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Hin-Tak Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I tried to follow the wiki instructions to do a git-cvsimport and
> it didn't work a week or two ago; and plain "cvs co" did not work either.
> I have a few other stuff on sourceforge, so the problem seems to be
--- On Thu, 3/4/08, Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Documentation is still in CVS?
> To: "Wine Devel"
> Date: Thursday, 3 April, 2008, 6:50 PM
> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:37 -0700, Lei Zhang wrot
On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 10:37 -0700, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Is there a reason why the Wine documentation is still in CVS, and not
> in GIT?
Yes. The docs are now maintained at SourceForge, and given the glacial
pace of updates, there is little reason to move them to git. Moreover,
git presents
Hi,
Is there a reason why the Wine documentation is still in CVS, and not in GIT?
- Lei
Am Donnerstag, 1. November 2007 08:00:36 schrieb Roy Shea:
> Howdy All,
>
> This autumn I began learning both Wine and COM. A
> combination of limited documentation and trouble finding the
> right example code for my task at hand made this a difficult
> process. In an attempt
Howdy All,
This autumn I began learning both Wine and COM. A
combination of limited documentation and trouble finding the
right example code for my task at hand made this a difficult
process. In an attempt to help other new Wine and COM
developers I wrote a tutorial on COM development the Wine
On 8/29/06, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 09:38 -0700, James Hawkins wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I thought I'd start with some documentation. The tests are already
> > t
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 09:38 -0700, James Hawkins wrote:
> On 8/29/06, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I thought I'd start with some documentation. The tests are already
> > there s
On 8/29/06, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I thought I'd start with some documentation. The tests are already
there so what's missing is the implementation :-).
/***
* WintrustAddAc
1 - 100 of 326 matches
Mail list logo
