"Ferenc Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is: the method of operation (GUI, console, quiet)
> should be taken into account already when displaying the
> error message about desktop visibility. It matters when you
> drive winetest from another program. I strongly believe
> that the i
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ferenc Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The -s option (submit file, do not run tests) makes sense
>> anyway. But my main reason is that it drove me mad by not
>> obeying the -c option (no GUI) in some test runs. And I
>> don't think it hur
"Ferenc Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The -s option (submit file, do not run tests) makes sense
> anyway. But my main reason is that it drove me mad by not
> obeying the -c option (no GUI) in some test runs. And I
> don't think it hurts or contradicts your aims.
I'd prefer to deprecate r
"Dmitry Timoshkov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Ferenc Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ChangeLog: Check desktop visibility after processing command
>>line arguments.
>
> Why do you need it? There is no point to proceed if the
> tests can not run in an appropriate environment.
"Ferenc Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ChangeLog: Check desktop visibility after processing command
>line arguments.
Why do you need it? There is no point to proceed if the tests
can not run in an appropriate environment.
--
Dmitry.
