On 01.12.2007 22:05, Steven Edwards wrote:
> I think teaching them about .lnk files is a better solution. It should not be
> to hard to have a mime type of *.lnk that invokes Wine and passes the
> shortcut to the link processor. Really all GNOME & KDE need to do
> with *.lnk files is have the abili
On Dec 2, 2007 9:16 AM, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does Gnome/KDE know which WINEPREFIX to use for foo.lnk? Why should
> it be '~/.wine' rather than '~/.wine-steam', '~/.wine-office' or
> something else?
Maybe rather than storying the information in memory and creating it
at
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Steven Edwards wrote:
[...]
> What this means is that on logon or logoff the WM would call our
> function and generate these fake Shortcuts for the *.lnk files by
> running a copy of winepath after calling the Wine shelllink processor.
> The results of winepath would translate '
On Dec 1, 2007 8:08 PM, Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great. Now KDE and Gnome will have a PE loader and windows resource
> parser. Plus when the .lnk points to a document they may have to load
> the Windows registry to see what icon Windows associated with that
> document, especiall
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Steven Edwards wrote:
[...]
> I think teaching them about .lnk files is a better solution. It should not be
> to hard to have a mime type of *.lnk that invokes Wine and passes the
> shortcut to the link processor. Really all GNOME & KDE need to do
> with *.lnk files is have the
On Nov 30, 2007 3:50 PM, Frank Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30.11.2007 18:50, Dimi Paun wrote:
> > I guess the preferred solution would be to teach GNOME & KDE
> > about .lnk files.
>
> Or write .desktop files to the Desktop dir.
I agree with Juan having multiple "Desktop" directories d
On 30.11.2007 18:50, Dimi Paun wrote:
> I guess the preferred solution would be to teach GNOME & KDE
> about .lnk files.
Or write .desktop files to the Desktop dir.
-f.r.
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 18:45 +0100, Francois Gouget wrote:
> That's ok only because you don't care about the Windows desktop
> shortcuts...
I guess the preferred solution would be to teach GNOME & KDE
about .lnk files.
--
Dimi Paun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Lattica, Inc.
> That's ok only because you don't care about the Windows desktop
> shortcuts...
Right, I know. My point is, there's no one-size-fits-all policy
that's clearly better than any other, at least that I've seen.
--Juan
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Juan Lang wrote:
[...]
> While this is annoying, I find it confusing to go to the "Desktop"
> directory and not find the files on my desktop there. I prefer having
> the two desktops the same, and just delete the .lnk files myself.
That's ok only because you don't care about
> I'm not sure we want to handle the desktop directory the same way. It's
> really a special case because applications often put their 'icons' on
> the desktop. So if the Windows desktop is just a symbolic link to the
> Unix one, the user will end up with a lot of 'xxx.lnk' files on his
> desktop.
On Friday 30 November 2007 03:35:14 am Francois Gouget wrote:
> I'm not sure we want to handle the desktop directory the same way. It's
> really a special case because applications often put their 'icons' on
> the desktop. So if the Windows desktop is just a symbolic link to the
> Unix one, the use
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> [...]
>> Also these variables should take priority over the default heuristics,
>> and you most likely want to handle the desktop dir the same way.
>
> I'm not sure we want to handle the desktop directo
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
[...]
> Also these variables should take priority over the default heuristics,
> and you most likely want to handle the desktop dir the same way.
I'm not sure we want to handle the desktop directory the same way. It's
really a special case because a
"Lei Zhang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was not sure if was alright to mix code with different licenses in
> the same file. I looked around and found that
> include/wine/wined3d_gl.h has both LGPL Wine code as well as MIT
> licensed code from the Mesa project. Based on that, I guess it's ok to
On Nov 26, 2007 4:49 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Lei,
>
> I think a new file for user dir look up in the shell32 is of no use.
> Rather than we can add it to the xdg.c and xdg.h, as it contains the
> generic xdg code for shell32.
> Its like having all xdg specific code at
Hi Lei,
I think a new file for user dir look up in the shell32 is of no use.
Rather than we can add it to the xdg.c and xdg.h, as it contains the
generic xdg code for shell32.
Its like having all xdg specific code at one place.
This is my personal opinion about those patches.
Thanks,
VJ
17 matches
Mail list logo
