Jacek Caban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The plan is to pass the version in URL query. Then the redirecting > script will take care on choosing the correct file from SourceForge. > It's backward compatible as older Wine won't pass the version so script > will assume that an old Gecko is requested. The new Gecko doesn't work > with old Wine (that's why we have to guaranty that it will download an > old Gecko). It's because we depend on some Gecko behaviors that have > changed. It's both due to Wine (we have to do some not nice tricks, to > not say ugly hacks, to make loading document work correctly) and not > perfect backward compatibility of Gecko. Also it's not guarantied that > newer Wine will work with older Gecko. Currently it will work, that's > why I think simple message is enough for now to not force people to > download over 5MB if their apps work without it. But we have to use some > unfrozen interfaces and they may change in the future preventing > backward compatibility. Although we probably could add some workarounds > when it will happen, I would be painful to support few Gecko version. So > if it will happen in the future, then we can change this check to never > use older Gecko (and perhaps add a nice updater).
One problem with your version scheme is that there's no obvious way of determining which version is newer, or compatible. A simple string comparison won't work for that purpose. > By coexisting different versions you mean in one Wine prefix? Yes, it > would be possible, but I don't see much point of it. If you think it > should be done this way, I may implement so (it prevents current > patches, these changes would be in another peace of code). A wine prefix dir needs to be portable across Wine versions, you should be able to upgrade/downgrade Wine while keeping the prefix dir. So if compatibility across Gecko versions is not guaranteed we have to support installing multiple versions in parallel. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
