Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:56:50PM +1100, Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/1/22 Francois Gouget : >> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Ben Klein wrote: >> [...] >>> Perhaps the question remains, is a VC7 runtime library intended to be >>> developed and shipped with Wine? I don't think this is the case. >> We have msvcirt, msvcrt, msvcrt20, msvcrt40, msvcr71 so I would not be >> so sure. Which dlls are we talking about anyway? > I'm always happy to be corrected :) I guess that's the crux of the question. To my mind, msvc runtimes are normally distributed with the using application (except some early ones which I think comes with all the versions of 32-bit Windows) and operate without hardware/HAL dependencies so they're not something that Wine needs to implement to be a complete implementation of Win32. They would be nice to have, sure. And then the upstream redistributable package will see that they are already installed and not install them. I presume this is the eventual goal for DirectX 9's D3DX support. Is bug-for-bug compatibility enough for platinum? Or do we need to be not just bug-for-bug compatible, but catching and fixing application bugs or installer bugs which trigger more frequently under Wine than Windows? The .NET 2.0 installer comes to mind here as a counterexample. It fails under Wine's WinXP mode because it uses a capability test which infers the right conclusion under Windows, but the wrong conclusion under Wine, despite there being a different test which actually answers the question being inferred. I guess under the above reasoning, that would not prevent it from being platinum, despite it being non-functional under the default configuration. .NET 2.0 is actually another example of a runtime which is often left out of installers, with a note at the website (or not at all) saying "You need .NET 2.0 installed". (I guess the eventual plan is to integrate an mscoree.dll that points to Mono? I think I saw that on the Wiki, anyway) Should Wine act like a stock Windows (or stock + service packs) or should it also be expected to provide whatever other random extension libraries Microsoft publishes? (eg. Speech SDK...) I hadn't realised Wine provided a msvcr71 implementation for that matter. >> msvcp80 and msvcr80? Or is it mfc80 that's needed? >> Btw, the AppDB mentions Visual C++ 2005 which means we're talking about >> VC8, not VC7. Or is the AppDB wrong? Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong >> AppDB entry: there's Reign of Chaos (rated platinum), and the Frozen >> Throne (rated gold). > Someone mentioned Warcraft 3, someone else mentioned WoW, I'm not sure > any more. It's all too confusing when you're low on coffee :P The DLL confusion is my fault, I misaligned Visual C and Visual Studio versions in my head. In this case, it's Visual Studio 2005, msvc?80.dll. Which coincidentally is the first one to implement SxS, which means it behaves differently under <= Win2k and >= WinXP. I dunno where WoW came into it, I was talking about Warcraft 3. Mind you, occasionally AppDB users (and bug reporters) confused the two as well. It doesn't help that WoW hit version 3 late last year. -- --- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE Very-later-year Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) paul.hamp...@pobox.com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ --- pgpbzB9ULYjgC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:48:34 + Darragh Bailey wrote: > Warcraft III and Frozen Throne expansion was released to support Windows > 98/ME/2k/XP. Nowhere in it's patch notes does it say that the minimum > requirements to run Warcraft 3 have changed to have the minimum > requirements of Windows 2k & XP only. Since to my knowledge the Visual > Studio 2008 (I believe that is 7, right?), doesn't have an runtimes for > Windows 98 or ME. Warcraft III and Frozen Throne needs MS Visual C 2005 Runtimes for patch 1.22 and newer.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
2009/1/22 Francois Gouget : > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Ben Klein wrote: > [...] >> Perhaps the question remains, is a VC7 runtime library intended to be >> developed and shipped with Wine? I don't think this is the case. > > We have msvcirt, msvcrt, msvcrt20, msvcrt40, msvcr71 so I would not be > so sure. Which dlls are we talking about anyway? I'm always happy to be corrected :) > msvcp80 and msvcr80? Or is it mfc80 that's needed? > > Btw, the AppDB mentions Visual C++ 2005 which means we're talking about > VC8, not VC7. Or is the AppDB wrong? Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong > AppDB entry: there's Reign of Chaos (rated platinum), and the Frozen > Throne (rated gold). Someone mentioned Warcraft 3, someone else mentioned WoW, I'm not sure any more. It's all too confusing when you're low on coffee :P
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Ben Klein wrote: [...] > Perhaps the question remains, is a VC7 runtime library intended to be > developed and shipped with Wine? I don't think this is the case. We have msvcirt, msvcrt, msvcrt20, msvcrt40, msvcr71 so I would not be so sure. Which dlls are we talking about anyway? msvcp80 and msvcr80? Or is it mfc80 that's needed? Btw, the AppDB mentions Visual C++ 2005 which means we're talking about VC8, not VC7. Or is the AppDB wrong? Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong AppDB entry: there's Reign of Chaos (rated platinum), and the Frozen Throne (rated gold). -- Francois Gouget http://fgouget.free.fr/ In a world without fences who needs Gates?
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:09:52PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > [...] > > > If you don't need to manually install the third-party library on a stock > > > installation of the application's officially supported Windows platform > > > (e.g. Wow on Windows XP), then you should not need to manually install > > > it in Wine. If you do, then that application cannot be rated platinum. > > > > True, but not the point I'm talking about. > > Strange. It seemed spot on to me and I have not seen anything that would > make me think otherwise so far. > > > > On a stock install of Windows XP, you'd have to go get the runtimes and > > install them, same as under a stock Wine prefix. > > Are you sure? It's quite possible that some Windows component (IE 7, > Messenger, a service pack, etc) installs these runtimes so that you > would not see this issue on Windows XP (or Vista). If so the Warcraft 3 > maintainer is correct and the application cannot be rated platinum. > > So maybe rather than 'stock Windows installation' I should say an 'up to > date Windows installation with no third party software'. Warcraft III and Frozen Throne expansion was released to support Windows 98/ME/2k/XP. Nowhere in it's patch notes does it say that the minimum requirements to run Warcraft 3 have changed to have the minimum requirements of Windows 2k & XP only. Since to my knowledge the Visual Studio 2008 (I believe that is 7, right?), doesn't have an runtimes for Windows 98 or ME. Basically to me the game developer dropped the ball, they shouldn't have compiled the patch contents in such a way that a) required a distributable that is not supported on all of the platforms they originally released a product for or b) failed to include the necessary runtimes when using any Visual Studio product. -- Darragh "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
2009/1/22 Paul TBBle Hampson : > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: >> [...] >>> What about apps that fail to include a necessary third-party library? > >>> If I understand the AppDB comments and followed the IRC discussion >>> correctly, Warcraft 3's latest patch (1.22) was built with a newer >>> Visual Studio and so requires new Visual C runtimes, while previous >>> versions did not. And the patcher doesn't install these runtimes. > >> If you don't need to manually install the third-party library on a stock >> installation of the application's officially supported Windows platform >> (e.g. Wow on Windows XP), then you should not need to manually install >> it in Wine. If you do, then that application cannot be rated platinum. > > True, but not the point I'm talking about. > > On a stock install of Windows XP, you'd have to go get the runtimes and > install them, same as under a stock Wine prefix. > > On a well-used Windows XP install, you most likely already have the > Visual Studio 7 runtimes installed, so won't notice the flaw in the > installer. Same as under a well-used Wine prefix. > > To my mind, this shouldn't prevent the application being rated platinum. > > The maintainer of Warcraft 3 rather feels that until Wine implements the > Visual Studio 7 runtime libraries as builtins, Warcraft 3 cannot be > rated platinum. Perhaps this argument can be summarised thusly: If 1. the required libraries are not intended to be a part of Wine (e.g., obscure 3rd-party runtimes) at any time in the future, and 2. the application requiring the libraries does not correctly ship the runtime libraries, then C. the requirement of native versions of the libraries separate from an application's installer should not impede an application from being rated "Platinum". So in the case of Warcraft 3 (or WoW, or whatever we're talking about now), we've established that #2 is true for the patch (the patch does not ship with the VC7 runtime, required to run the game after patching). Perhaps the question remains, is a VC7 runtime library intended to be developed and shipped with Wine? I don't think this is the case. What it boils down to is expected behaviour. Is it expected that the patched game should fail, due to missing VC7 runtime, on a regular Windows system (assuming no other software has installed VC7 runtime already)? If so, then it is in fact working correctly, and perhaps does deserve a "Platinum" rating.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: [...] > > If you don't need to manually install the third-party library on a stock > > installation of the application's officially supported Windows platform > > (e.g. Wow on Windows XP), then you should not need to manually install > > it in Wine. If you do, then that application cannot be rated platinum. > > True, but not the point I'm talking about. Strange. It seemed spot on to me and I have not seen anything that would make me think otherwise so far. > On a stock install of Windows XP, you'd have to go get the runtimes and > install them, same as under a stock Wine prefix. Are you sure? It's quite possible that some Windows component (IE 7, Messenger, a service pack, etc) installs these runtimes so that you would not see this issue on Windows XP (or Vista). If so the Warcraft 3 maintainer is correct and the application cannot be rated platinum. So maybe rather than 'stock Windows installation' I should say an 'up to date Windows installation with no third party software'. -- Francois Gouget http://fgouget.free.fr/ Avoid the Gates of Hell - use Linux.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Francois Gouget wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: > [...] >> What about apps that fail to include a necessary third-party library? >> If I understand the AppDB comments and followed the IRC discussion >> correctly, Warcraft 3's latest patch (1.22) was built with a newer >> Visual Studio and so requires new Visual C runtimes, while previous >> versions did not. And the patcher doesn't install these runtimes. > If you don't need to manually install the third-party library on a stock > installation of the application's officially supported Windows platform > (e.g. Wow on Windows XP), then you should not need to manually install > it in Wine. If you do, then that application cannot be rated platinum. True, but not the point I'm talking about. On a stock install of Windows XP, you'd have to go get the runtimes and install them, same as under a stock Wine prefix. On a well-used Windows XP install, you most likely already have the Visual Studio 7 runtimes installed, so won't notice the flaw in the installer. Same as under a well-used Wine prefix. To my mind, this shouldn't prevent the application being rated platinum. The maintainer of Warcraft 3 rather feels that until Wine implements the Visual Studio 7 runtime libraries as builtins, Warcraft 3 cannot be rated platinum. -- --- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE Very-later-year Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) paul.hamp...@pobox.com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ --- pgpaISRnbVZNa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote: [...] > What about apps that fail to include a necessary third-party library? > > If I understand the AppDB comments and followed the IRC discussion > correctly, Warcraft 3's latest patch (1.22) was built with a newer > Visual Studio and so requires new Visual C runtimes, while previous > versions did not. And the patcher doesn't install these runtimes. If you don't need to manually install the third-party library on a stock installation of the application's officially supported Windows platform (e.g. Wow on Windows XP), then you should not need to manually install it in Wine. If you do, then that application cannot be rated platinum. -- Francois Gouget http://fgouget.free.fr/ Demander si un ordinateur peut penser revient à demander si un sous-marin peut nager.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 12:39:25PM +1100, Ben Klein wrote: > 2009/1/20 : >> Similarly, AppDB might prevent Gold or Silver ratings depending on >> qualitative aspects of the steps needed to make an app work: >> - need for known distributable third party libraries (e.g. codecs, >> Quicktime) >> (not provided with the application's installer) > This is already covered in the current "Gold" rating description. If > the application requires such 3rd-party libraries that are *not > normally present* on Windows (e.g. codecs, Quicktime), then it should > ship with them. If the shipped 3rd-party libraries do not install for > whatever reason, it's not a Platinum app. What about apps that fail to include a necessary third-party library? If I understand the AppDB comments and followed the IRC discussion correctly, Warcraft 3's latest patch (1.22) was built with a newer Visual Studio and so requires new Visual C runtimes, while previous versions did not. And the patcher doesn't install these runtimes. Assuming the above is correct (if I'm wrong, take it as a hypothetical) then would that rate as Platinum if it's otherwise perfect? I'm of the opinion that it does, on the grounds that Wine itself is working fine, the problem is actually an upstream bug. The maintainer of the relevant AppDB page (or at least the author of one of the notes on that page, I presume the maintainer does that) does not. -- --- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, B.Sc, LPI, MCSE Very-later-year Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) paul.hamp...@pobox.com Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did, we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and listening to repetitive music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ --- pgpjXBVBE3Yo5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
2009/1/20 :
> Hi,
>
> here are, from an obvious user perspective, my 0.02$ on the issue.
>
> - Platinum: app works "out of the box" -- without changing any
> settings -- *and* as well as on MS-Windows. That means no feature is
> missing: music plays, graphics look similar on both plattforms, the
> perceived speed or responsiveness is similar, ...
> (Question: does the need to install thrid party SW like codecs or
> Quicktime preclude "platinum" because it's not "out of the box"?)
3rd-party software like codecs or Quicktime do not ship as part of
Windows, they ship as part of the software that depends on them. I
cover this again further down.
> For anything below platinum, I don't want AppDB to ask users to
> compare with MS-Windows. Users either don't care about MS-Windows or
> don't have the time to perform a dual installation or don't even have
> a MS-Windows machine!
This appears to defeat your argument, since the appdb is maintained
and updated by users. If users "don't care about" or "don't have the
time" for Windows, then you'll end up never getting a platinum rating
with this qualification.
> Yet to gain platinum rating, I concede that the additional effort to
> test the application's behaviour on MS-Windows is valuable to detect
> discrepancies between the two ("hey, I didn't know before that the
> application would play background music!").
Yes, it is valuable, however it's not practical, as you pointed out
earlier. It's also implying that you need a copy of Windows to use
Wine to its fullest. We shouldn't assume that *anyone* using Wine has
a copy of Windows too.
> - Garbage: nobody knows how to make this app work with that version of
> wine. Don't buy it, you are likely wasting your time & money.
Wine does not only run commercial applications. Instructing users to
not buy products in the rating definitions is, again, assuming far too
much about what the users are trying to do.
In some cases, there are apps that are impossible to make functional
in Wine. Your suggested description implies that there are no such
cases, and that some future version of Wine will be able to handle it.
> Anything else gets a rating above garbage, no matter how ugly the fix
> or patch is. What counts is that there's a known way to make it work.
>
> - Bronze: the application shows a "promise" that some additional fixes
> and patches may make it work well.
Wow, this is completely unsuitable as a rating description without a
detailed definition of what a "promise" means. It also disqualifies
cases of "it runs, but not well" where no known patches or "fixes"
make it run better.
> I'm opposed to the idea that a given AppDB version should only
> denote an unpatched wine in test results. Consider how Dan Kegel
> recently recommended distributors not to distribute 1.1.12. E.g. a
> hypothetical future Ubuntu package "1.1.12" may contain the official
> 1.1.12 plus the three patches that Dan Kegel recommends.
I thought you just said Dan was recommending distributors NOT distribute 1.1.12!
Also note that WineHQ distributes its own packages of Wine for Ubuntu.
Technically, we should only support these packages, and not those
shipped by Ubuntu.
> Users would likely not know nor notice.
This is the problem. If a user doesn't know what patches have been
applied to their Wine that make their application work, then the AppDB
will have blatantly incorrect information. AppDB implies that *no
patches* were applied to Wine when the apps were tested. Saying we
only want test data from unpatched Wine releases makes the implication
explicit instead. This is a good thing.
> Typically, distributors add whatever
> patches they feel right to the upstream releases.
> So it does not seem practical to have the need for a patch prevent
> ratings above garbage (or bronze), as some people suggested here.
It's more impractical to allow users to submit test data from patched
Wines. What happens if the patches aren't specified in the test data,
or if the patches are something the user has written but hasn't made
public?
> To me, 1.1.12 plus N patches (N "small") is still 1.1.12 as far as the
> AppDB is concerned. However N>0 might preclude platinum, as defined above
> (except for Ubuntu users).
You have to define what "small" is. Even then, it doesn't help,
because you could have one really big patch, or one really small (as
in one-line) patch that violently changes the behaviour of Wine.
To me, and I would guess to most Wine developers, 1.1.12 means 1.1.12
as accessible from upstream. So if you go to Wine's directory on
ibiblio.org and download a tarball, you get the exact source used to
compile that version of Wine.
Note that some common patches, like the CoD/3DMark patch, break more
apps than they fix. In your opinion, should there be any criteria on
what patches should be allowed in test data for appdb?
> Similarly, AppDB might prevent Gold or Silver ratings depending on
> qualitative aspects of the steps needed to mak
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:46:06 -0500 Sparr wrote: > I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year > now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most > important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find > in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved. http://repo.or.cz/w/WineLauncher.git?a=shortlog
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Sparr wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Zachary Goldberg wrote: >> 2009/1/7 Sparr : >>> Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no >>> one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved >>> with making a wine launcher. >> This statement is very untrue. >> http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications > > I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year > now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most > important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find > in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved. > > > Crossover/Bordeaux/PlayonLinux do. The others, I've never heard of. -- -Austin
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Zachary Goldberg wrote: > 2009/1/7 Sparr : >> Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no >> one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved >> with making a wine launcher. > This statement is very untrue. > http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications I have not investigated the state of wine launchers in about a year now. Do any of those handle multiple WINEPREFIXes? That is the most important feature of Cedega's launcher that I was never able to find in a wine launcher. Thank you and forgive me if things have improved.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > Forgive me for bringing this up again, but could this be another > argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher > that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, > particular settings, &c in order to get particular applications to work > better with the current latest version of Wine? > > Users would presumably be happy because they download Wine, download > the launcher, and have great user experience "out of the box" with less > complication. > > Devs would also presumably be happy as: > - they would be able to use it as a source of inspiration for ongoing work > - it makes concerns like this moot when it comes to appdb > > Might even be a good way of gently reminding users when new versions of > Wine are released... > > -- > Chris > > > > You're free to do that if you'd like, but I don't see how that would help. The effort is better spent getting those patches put into Wine itself. -- -Austin
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
Sparr wrote: >On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Chris Howe wrote: >> argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher >> that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, > >Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no >one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved >with making a wine launcher. > I take offesense to that comment. Darwine does have a wine launcher and it does work. James McKenzie
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
Sparr wrote: >On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Chris Howe wrote: >> argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher >> that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, > >Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no >one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved >with making a wine launcher. > I take offesense to that comment. Darwine does have a wine launcher and it does work. James McKenzie
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
2009/1/7 Sparr : > Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no > one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved > with making a wine launcher. This statement is very untrue. http://wiki.winehq.org/ThirdPartyApplications
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Chris Howe wrote: > argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher > that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, Re-compiling wine with patches is an extremely farfetched idea when no one outside Cedega has ever tackled the far simpler tasks involved with making a wine launcher.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
Forgive me for bringing this up again, but could this be another argument for some kind of WineTricks-like Wine application launcher that would exist as a separate project to Wine, but would apply patches, particular settings, &c in order to get particular applications to work better with the current latest version of Wine? Users would presumably be happy because they download Wine, download the launcher, and have great user experience "out of the box" with less complication. Devs would also presumably be happy as: - they would be able to use it as a source of inspiration for ongoing work - it makes concerns like this moot when it comes to appdb Might even be a good way of gently reminding users when new versions of Wine are released... -- Chris
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM, James Mckenzie wrote: > No, the appdb should not be touched. Rosanne said it correctly, ordinary > users are NOT going to take the time to build Wine, nor should they. We can > put in the bug report that the patch works and whether or not it has been > submitted. Sometimes a patch is to rough or a real hack that breaks other > programs, but with refinement is acceptable and will be incorporated into > Wine. The appdb needs to stay as clean as it can. Of course, you can always > add a bug report to the appdb entry, add comments and let users decide what > they want to do. Rating a rogue patched Wine as Gold is very misleading. We > need to keep ratings to what is available for the ordinary, unknowing user > (read nOOb.) Ok, I can see that nobody agrees with me here. I think the suggestion helps newbies *and* experts by keeping them sorted out. The situation where some reports are against patched versions and others arent, and you have to dig into the details to figure out which is which doesn't serve anybody. Excluding patched versions entirely is one way of solving the problem, but it seems to me that you're going to have a hard time stopping people from reporting results against patched versions. Binning all patched versions into "Bronze" isn't great, since some of us *do* want to know if we can make an app work with a patch, and in fact quite a few of us Linux users fall into that category. But anyway, I've made my argument and I'll drop it now. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Austin English wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nathaniel Gray wrote: >> It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't >> descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given >> program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder >> how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will >> work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have >> in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to >> reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. > > No. Because that allows for all sorts of dirty hacks, and is confusing > to users. Ratings should specify default wine. They can list patches, > etc., in the comments, with a note of how well it works. It seems to me that digging through comments to find out if a report refers to a version that was patched is more confusing than having it advertised right up front in the version string. And it makes sense -- a patched 1.1.11 is not the same *version* as 1.1.11. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
Sometimes to make an app work, you need to copy over some native dlls. To get these dlls don't you need to own a copy of windows? Could this be a criterion in the rating system? Wether or not you need to own a copy of windows? nick *** WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this e-mail without appropriate authority. If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. ***
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Rosanne DiMesio wrote: >> >> It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't >> descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given >> program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder >> how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will >> work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have >> in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to >> reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. >> > > Patched with what? Lumping all the different possibilities into one "version" > is also misleading. Perfect information isn't necessary here. It's just useful to know what kind of performance you can get if you decide to venture into the world of patching and recompiling. Experts will know if it's worth their time, newbies will know to stay away. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
>On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio wrote: >> >>> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted >>> by AJ and is pending the next development release. >>> >> Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still >> shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to >> tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. >> Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing >> ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch >> does eventually make it in to a later release. > >It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't >descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given >program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder >how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will >work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have >in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to >reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. > No, the appdb should not be touched. Rosanne said it correctly, ordinary users are NOT going to take the time to build Wine, nor should they. We can put in the bug report that the patch works and whether or not it has been submitted. Sometimes a patch is to rough or a real hack that breaks other programs, but with refinement is acceptable and will be incorporated into Wine. The appdb needs to stay as clean as it can. Of course, you can always add a bug report to the appdb entry, add comments and let users decide what they want to do. Rating a rogue patched Wine as Gold is very misleading. We need to keep ratings to what is available for the ordinary, unknowing user (read nOOb.) James McKenzie
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
> > It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't > descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given > program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder > how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will > work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have > in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to > reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. > Patched with what? Lumping all the different possibilities into one "version" is also misleading. IMO, the appropriate rating for apps that can only be made to work by patching Wine is bronze: "Application works, but it has some issues, even for normal use..." Perhaps the wording can be changed to explicitly mention patching as one of the possible "issues" warranting a bronze, but I think the basic definition already fits. -- Rosanne DiMesio
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Nathaniel Gray wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio wrote: >> >>> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted >>> by AJ and is pending the next development release. >>> >> Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still >> shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to >> tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. >> Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing >> ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch >> does eventually make it in to a later release. > > It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't > descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given > program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder > how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will > work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have > in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to > reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. > > Cheers, > -n8 > > -- > Nathan Gray > http://www.n8gray.org/ > > > No. Because that allows for all sorts of dirty hacks, and is confusing to users. Ratings should specify default wine. They can list patches, etc., in the comments, with a note of how well it works. -- -Austin
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio wrote: > >> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted >> by AJ and is pending the next development release. >> > Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still > shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to > tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. > Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing > ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch > does eventually make it in to a later release. +1 -- -Austin
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Rosanne DiMesio wrote: > >> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted >> by AJ and is pending the next development release. >> > Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still > shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to > tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. > Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing > ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch > does eventually make it in to a later release. It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
> Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted > by AJ and is pending the next development release. > Then the next development release can get the gold, but previous ones still shouldn't. AppDB test ratings are tied to specific releases, and intended to tell normal users how different versions of Wine will work with their app. Patching Wine is not something normal users can or want to do, and allowing ratings based on patched versions of Wine is misleading, even if the patch does eventually make it in to a later release. -- Rosanne DiMesio
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
Jeff Zaroyko wrote: > Gold means you're either using native dlls, have modified the program > by patching it with nocd or you've modified Wine to make it work, ie > there is a work around that makes the application work flawlessly. > There's no reason to exclude modifying Wine, you are empowered to > change it as you see fit since it's free software. > > I'm siding with Bjoern on this one: If the patch is outside of the Wine tree, it is not Gold, it's Garbage. If you can 'fix it' with a native dll(s) then it is Gold IF and only IF all functions work. For instance, e-Sword, which is the only real reason I'm using Wine, has to have riched20.dll and riched32.dll in order to display text. Graphics do not display. It is NOT Gold, but Silver. Yes, you can display text without it, but you cannot input text for Notes or Topic Notes, which is what I consider a major function. The ability to display maps is not, as you can view them with a different, native, application. Now, the story changes if the patch is conforming and has been accepted by AJ and is pending the next development release. James McKenzie
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Jeff Zaroyko wrote: > 2009/1/6 Björn Krombholz : > Gold means [...] you've modified Wine to make it work, ie > there is a work around that makes the application work flawlessly. > There's no reason to exclude modifying Wine, you are empowered to > change it as you see fit since it's free software. This point is where the disagreement lies. Let me be very specific. The argument here is not that patches should disqualify Gold ratings. It is that patches change the version of wine that you are running. Specifically, the people giving "Fallout 3 on wine 1.1.12" a Gold rating are not actually running wine 1.1.12, they are running wine [snapshot/git]+patch. "Fallout 3 on wine [snapshot/git]+patch" deserves a Gold rating. "Fallout 3 on wine 1.1.12" deserves a Garbage rating, because it Does Not Work no matter what you change within the confines of wine 1.1.12.
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
2009/1/6 Björn Krombholz : > Hi, > > I started a discussion inside AppDB about the in my eyes "strange" > Gold rating of Fallout 3 --snip-- > The basic point is: Fallout 3 (a game) only works with a small -- but > nevertheless -- patch, otherwise it will crash, no matter what > dll-overrides/settings/3rd-party apps. -- snip -- > From how I understand the wording in [2], an app that requires a patch > to run, can't get a gold rating. In fact, if there is no way to get it > working in a vanilla wine release, then there is no other option than > "Garbage" IMO. The various arguments for that assumption (possible > breaking of other apps run by the same wine installation, regression > tracking, etc.) are in the quote below. That's simply not true... Gold means you're either using native dlls, have modified the program by patching it with nocd or you've modified Wine to make it work, ie there is a work around that makes the application work flawlessly. There's no reason to exclude modifying Wine, you are empowered to change it as you see fit since it's free software. -Jeff
Re: AppDB: Rating / Patching
Björn Krombholz wrote: > Hi, > > I started a discussion inside AppDB about the in my eyes "strange" > Gold rating of Fallout 3 (it's actually just an example, other entries > suffer the same problems). I know there was a discussion about the > rating on this list last month, but as far as I could see my > particular issue wasn't covered and I only just subscribed. So here > goes a new thread. > > The appdb thread [1] is included below (prevent OT-cleanup deletion > inside appdb). I don't expect anyone to read it completely, but I > didn't want to repeat every argument again either. ;) > > The basic point is: Fallout 3 (a game) only works with a small -- but > nevertheless -- patch, otherwise it will crash, no matter what > dll-overrides/settings/3rd-party apps. > > >From how I understand the wording in [2], an app that requires a patch > to run, can't get a gold rating. In fact, if there is no way to get it > working in a vanilla wine release, then there is no other option than > "Garbage" IMO. The various arguments for that assumption (possible > breaking of other apps run by the same wine installation, regression > tracking, etc.) are in the quote below. > > The maintainer tried to convince me that a gold rating is valid, > because Fallout 3 works great with the patch applied. Well obviously > he failed, and the discussion went away from Fallout in particular to > a more general interpretation of [2]. I'm neither saying I'm right and > he's wrong, nor the other way around. IMO both interpretation can be > valid, depending on how you read "some DLL overrides, other settings > or third party software." > > > My suggestion now would be: > * Clarify the wording on what "other settings" really means (my > interpretation is mainly registry modifications with winecfg and/or > regedit). > > * Add an explicit statement about patched wine versions. Something like: > - Any application that requires a patched wine to run MUST NOT be > rated higher than "Garbage" > (or whatever rating was intended for this situation). > > [1] > http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=14322#Comment-44631 > [2] http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings > > > Björn > > Here is the rating system as I see it and most others: Platinum: -- ALL functions are as they are in Windows with maybe minor usage difficulties WITHOUT change to Wine. Gold -- ALL functions work as they do in Windows with only replacement of known broken dynamically linked library files. No code changes are acceptable. Patches, unless accepted by AJ, are not a reason to rate a program with this status. Silver -- MAJOR functions work as they do in Windows with only replacement of known broken dlls. Garbage -- Program does not function with Wine even if broken dlls are replaced. Needs major patching and/or repair work. Sounds like you have the right opinion, the program should be rated Garbage as it does not work with Wine, even upon replacement of broken dlls. James McKenzie
