Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The one mentioned is maybe the wrong example as it's quite clear. The
> point however is that this test will never be run anymore as long as
> nobody cares.
That's how it should be. If the behavior across Windows versions is
inconsistent, it means that no
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 07:33 -0800, James Hawkins wrote:
> The if 0 exclusion is enough because it shows that at one point
> advpack checked for the null parameter, but now it doesn't on some
> versions. We check for the null param, so we're on the safe side of
> the fence. Not many apps/installer
On 11/25/06, Paul Vriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 19:06 +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
> On Friday 24 November 2006 13:33, Paul Vriens wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > after my last patch to yet 'remove' another test I had another look at
> > tests.winehq.org. With the arrival of IE7 and of
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 19:06 +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
> On Friday 24 November 2006 13:33, Paul Vriens wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > after my last patch to yet 'remove' another test I had another look at
> > tests.winehq.org. With the arrival of IE7 and of course a lot of changes
> > to dll's (not even mentio
On Friday 24 November 2006 13:33, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after my last patch to yet 'remove' another test I had another look at
> tests.winehq.org. With the arrival of IE7 and of course a lot of changes
> to dll's (not even mentioning Vista) it looks like Windows versions are
> starting to be
Hi,
after my last patch to yet 'remove' another test I had another look at
tests.winehq.org. With the arrival of IE7 and of course a lot of changes
to dll's (not even mentioning Vista) it looks like Windows versions are
starting to behave not even close to similar.
How can we deal with these diff
