On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 22:49:55 +0100
Ken Sharp wrote:
>
>
> On 26/07/13 19:42, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
> > But admins no longer have the power to delete users, so there's nothing I
> > can do to stop him from continually resubmitting it.
>
> This is a real pain. Was it intentional or a bug that'
On 26/07/13 19:42, Rosanne DiMesio wrote:
But admins no longer have the power to delete users, so there's nothing I can
do to stop him from continually resubmitting it.
This is a real pain. Was it intentional or a bug that's slipped in?
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:47:36 +0100
Ken Sharp wrote:
> I have to ask:
>
> Do we really think that this user is running Wine 1.0.1 on Windows 7 64-bit?
> http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=28587&iTestingId=79589
>
>
No; letting it throug
Am 26.07.2013 17:47, schrieb Ken Sharp:
> I have to ask:
>
> Do we really think that this user is running Wine 1.0.1 on Windows 7 64-bit?
> http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=28587&iTestingId=79589
>
>
Ask him what he really wanted to choose.
I have to ask:
Do we really think that this user is running Wine 1.0.1 on Windows 7 64-bit?
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=28587&iTestingId=79589
Austin English writes:
> From the keeping Focht happy/thanking him for debugging my bugs department :)
New stubs should be commented out until there is evidence that some
application is using them.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Hello Dan,
wdrwo> Windows 7 changed the folders in c:/users/$USERNAME around a bit.
not only 'a bit'. There are a lot of changes in the folder structure
since Vista:
See URL:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd378457(v=VS.85).aspx>
--
Joerg Schiermeier
Windows Vista and was not
refined in Windows 7.
Kornél
Jerome Leclanche wrote:
I suspect there are badly behaved apps on both sides of the road,
however these apps are legitimately broken; would they even work on a
non-english version of windows?
If there was a choice to be made though, for what
pr 22, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Windows 7 changed the folders in c:/users/$USERNAME around a bit.
>
> My Documents is now just a link to the new folder Documents
> Application Data is now just a link to the new folder AppData/Roaming
> Local Settings is now just a link to th
Windows 7 changed the folders in c:/users/$USERNAME around a bit.
My Documents is now just a link to the new folder Documents
Application Data is now just a link to the new folder AppData/Roaming
Local Settings is now just a link to the new folder AppData/Local
How is this going to affect Wine
On 8 November 2010 17:32, Reece Dunn wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 04:45, Austin Lund wrote:
>> On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie wrote:
>>> Thus a second test case needs to be
>>> developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
>>> Windows7. Something like what we
On 8 November 2010 04:45, Austin Lund wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie wrote:
>> Thus a second test case needs to be
>> developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
>> Windows7. Something like what we do for Unicode tests for Windows9x/ME.
>
> Isn't th
On 8 November 2010 11:49, James McKenzie wrote:
> Thus a second test case needs to be
> developed that is only for Windows7 and the remaining test skipped for
> Windows7. Something like what we do for Unicode tests for Windows9x/ME.
Isn't the rule that the tests should only check windows versio
x27;t be both at the
same time. You should look into why it's failing on Win7 and correct the
test so it succeeds.
I guess it makes the test a bit less useful for catching any errors,
but reading between the lines at msdn makes me suspect that passing
NULL for the pidl here simply doesn'
both at the
> same time. You should look into why it's failing on Win7 and correct the
> test so it succeeds.
>
I guess it makes the test a bit less useful for catching any errors,
but reading between the lines at msdn makes me suspect that passing
NULL for the pidl here s
On 11/07/2010 04:06 PM, David Hedberg wrote:
-ok(hr == S_OK, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
+ok(hr == S_OK || hr == E_FAIL /* Win7 */, "got (0x%08x)\n", hr);
This can't be correct. It either works or it fails. Can't be both at the
same time. You should look into why it's failing on Win7 and co
You might as well just set the initial value to 1.0. Note that this
seems to succeed on at least some setups though:
http://test.winehq.org/data/4d3aec55ea41cb0f47a9da82de1665ad1b16f3de/win7_Win7-x86/d3d9:visual.html
Also, does this work for the d3d8 version of the test?
--- On Mon, 10/5/09, Paul Vriens wrote:
From: Paul Vriens
Subject: Re: kernel32/tests: Pass test on error code returned by Windows 7
To: "Dmitry Kislyuk"
Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 12:49 AM
On 10/05/2009 05:09 AM, Dmitry Kislyuk wrote:
>
>
> -
On 10/05/2009 05:09 AM, Dmitry Kislyuk wrote:
--- On *Sun, 10/4/09, Paul Vriens //* wrote:
From: Paul Vriens
Subject: Re: kernel32/tests: Pass test on error code returned by
Windows 7
To: dim...@rocketmail.com
Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org
Date: Sunday, October 4, 2009
--- On Sun, 10/4/09, Paul Vriens wrote:
From: Paul Vriens
Subject: Re: kernel32/tests: Pass test on error code returned by Windows 7
To: dim...@rocketmail.com
Cc: wine-devel@winehq.org
Date: Sunday, October 4, 2009, 4:20 AM
On 10/04/2009 09:10 AM, Dmitry Kislyuk wrote:
>> +
On 10/04/2009 09:10 AM, Dmitry Kislyuk wrote:
+ok( GetLastError() == 0xdeadbeef || GetLastError() == 2 /* Win 7 */,
+"expected 0xdeadbeef or 2, got %d\n", GetLastError());
Don't use magic numbers, ERROR_FILE_NOT_FOUND would be better.
--
Cheers,
Paul.
2009/4/3 Austin English :
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
>> 2009/4/3 Austin English :
>>> I'm not sure what the dwbuildnumber should be, I can't find that
>>> information anywhere...Anywho, this should work.
>>>
>> RC1 was 0x1b9c, I think.
>
> Where do you get that informat
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> 2009/4/3 Austin English :
>> I'm not sure what the dwbuildnumber should be, I can't find that
>> information anywhere...Anywho, this should work.
>>
> RC1 was 0x1b9c, I think.
Where do you get that information from?
> The final build number
2009/4/3 Austin English :
> I'm not sure what the dwbuildnumber should be, I can't find that
> information anywhere...Anywho, this should work.
>
RC1 was 0x1b9c, I think. The final build number isn't known yet, of
course, which is also a reason why it doesn't make sense to add thise
before it's act
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:32 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Austin and I were trying to work it out last night from the Win 7 beta
> :-) Is there any software on Earth that looks specifically for Windows
> 7 as yet?
I had my roommate try CPU-Z, but it shows Windows Vista.
--
-Austin
2009/4/3 Austin English :
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Stefan Dösinger
> wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, 2. April 2009 13:07:18 schrieb Fred .:
>>> Yeah, I know.
>>> It is on the way though. It will be released.
>>> So I would like to be able to choose
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Stefan Dösinger wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 2. April 2009 13:07:18 schrieb Fred .:
>> Yeah, I know.
>> It is on the way though. It will be released.
>> So I would like to be able to choose Windows 7.
> Feel free to send a patch ;-)
Am Donnerstag, 2. April 2009 13:07:18 schrieb Fred .:
> Yeah, I know.
> It is on the way though. It will be released.
> So I would like to be able to choose Windows 7.
Feel free to send a patch ;-)
Yeah, I know.
It is on the way though. It will be released.
So I would like to be able to choose Windows 7.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Austin English wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Fred . wrote:
>> I can put Windows XP, Vista, 2003, 2008. But not Windows 7.
>>
>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Fred . wrote:
> I can put Windows XP, Vista, 2003, 2008. But not Windows 7.
>
>
>
It's not officially released yet, it's still a beta.
--
-Austin
I can put Windows XP, Vista, 2003, 2008. But not Windows 7.
James Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Paul Vriens
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have our first Windows 7 test results :
>> http://test.winehq.org/data/a69c86d3f517f659ba47495f77deac2df671fb03/vista_windows7-virtualbox/version.html
>>
>> I&
Austin English wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:24 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Paul Vriens
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have our first Windows 7 test results :
>>> http://test.winehq.org/data/a69c86d3f517f65
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:24 PM, James Hawkins wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Paul Vriens
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have our first Windows 7 test results :
>> http://test.winehq.org/data/a69c86d3f517f659ba47495f77deac2df671fb03/vista_windows7-virtual
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM, Paul Vriens wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have our first Windows 7 test results :
> http://test.winehq.org/data/a69c86d3f517f659ba47495f77deac2df671fb03/vista_windows7-virtualbox/version.html
>
> I'm not sure if '7' is a nice/correct heade
I read an interesting article on slashdot today:
http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/04/04/1437258.shtml
> Windows 7 will be a from-the-ground-up packaging of the Windows codebase;
> partially source,
> but not binary compatible with previous versions of Windows."
Sounds like the
36 matches
Mail list logo
