Re: [3/20] WineD3D: Implement IWineD3DDeviceImpl_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF
Stefan Dösinger wrote: You're returning a size_t here, which does not match the WINED3DERR_OUTOFVIDEOMEMORY returned on the HeapAlloc (granted, that's probably incorrect behavior by d3d9, but at least the return types should be consistent). Does that mean we'll be removing the other two versions of this code in existence (d3d9, and drawprim conv)? By the way, who wrote the very first version - I was looking through git history to figure out the proper copyright attribution, and it predates the git tree. I guess we should update the copyright in d3d9/vertexdeclaration.c to list that person if it isn't done already. I was just curious... Ivan
Using A- instead of W-calls in tests
Hi, There are several tests where we use W-calls where we could use A-calls to accomplish the same test goal. Most of the time this means some of these will fail on Win9x or WinME as they are not by default Unicode enabled. Do we need write our tests with A-calls ? For Wine this doesn't matter if we're forwarding the call to a W-call. I do think it could matter on Windows or does Windows also do the forwarding? As an example: there are several CryptAcquireContextW calls in the cert tests for crypt32. These fail with an ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED on win98 and following tests that rely on the return valuse also fail. Should these tests be re-written to use CryptAcquireContextA or should we skip to avoid the hassle. I just want some opinions. I know Alexandre already mentioned not being to worried about failing win98 tests but I like to see an all green (with some blue borders) tests.winehq.org page :-). Cheers, Paul.
Re: [try2] kernel32: Add partial stub for NeedCurrentDirectoryForExePath - what's wrong?
Now, I am writing tests for this. Windows crashes if I pass NULL pointer to these function. Crash can be easily avoided in wine. Should we crash too? And how the windows crash can be caught? Or just I should not write such test-case? Thanks, -- Kirill
Re: [4/20] DDraw: Get rid of FVFs
On 24/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +hr = IWineD3DDevice_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF(This-wineD3DDevice, + pDecl, + (IUnknown *) ICOM_INTERFACE(This, IDirectDraw7), + fvf); Is this right? Passing the IDirectDrawImpl as parent looks a bit questionable.
SambaXP 2007 Report, Day 2
Hi folks, time for the second part of the SambaXP status report. On tuesday, I had the chance to talk to Sam Ranji from Microsoft at lunch. He is leading the open source compatibility lab at Microsoft, a lab running only open source software. He told us that he was at SambaXP to figure out how Microsoft could help the Samba community and Samba customers. The conversation was very polite, but not very much to a point. Sam seems to be pretty reasonable about talking to the open source community, but there is only so much he can do on the Microsoft side. Microsoft seems to acknowledge that there is need for a product like Samba out there and it looks like they have decided to play along. Sam mentioned that there were some bugs in Vista that severely hurt Samba interoperability and that Microsoft fixed them prior to the Vista release. Simo Sorce then pointed out some cases where Microsoft used to cooperate with Samba and now stopped talking. Dan Shearer told an amusing anecdote about one project manager at Microsoft who wanted to use ports 1024 for privileged services, and how Tridge wrote a perl script exploiting this potential vulnerability, before it even existed. Sam seems to be really interested in cooperating with Samba in the area of bug reports, and see where the cooperation can go from there. While this doesn't mean much for Wine, it seems like Microsoft finally is accepting that they can't just will open source software away. We will see how this develops. Centeris is producing Centeris Likewise, a product that supports managing Linux/Unix products using standard Windows administration tools. Centeris' Krishna Ganugapati had a fast-paced talk about Likewise and named a couple of requirements for porting their .NET/Mono based management applications to Linux. Among the things they need are a library similar to netapi32, a library doing DCE/RPC and remote named pipes. Now, if you remember part 1 of my report, remote named pipes is something I already got started on. Talking to Krishna after his talk, we both realized that cooperating in this area will give Centeris a way to port their product and Wine a way to just thunk to a native library instead of reinventing the wheel. Centeris is happy to fund development in that area and then release this under a free license. I will get into that some more after SoC. Most conversations I had in the breaks and at the social event are not really interesting from a Wine point of view, but we will see how that develops after my talk this afternoon. Signing off to listen to another interesting talk, Kai -- Kai Blin, kai Dot blin At gmail Dot com WorldForge developerhttp://www.worldforge.org/ Wine developer http://wiki.winehq.org/KaiBlin/ -- Will code for cotton. pgp9k2EldxYTQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [3/20] WineD3D: Implement IWineD3DDeviceImpl_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF
Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 07:55 schrieb Ivan Gyurdiev: Stefan Dösinger wrote: You're returning a size_t here, which does not match the WINED3DERR_OUTOFVIDEOMEMORY returned on the HeapAlloc (granted, that's probably incorrect behavior by d3d9, but at least the return types should be consistent). Ooops. Does that mean we'll be removing the other two versions of this code in existence (d3d9, and drawprim conv)? That is the plan. With d3d9 I am not sure, because d3d9 needs a d3d9 decl. Either we leave d3d9 as it is, or we convert the wined3d decl to a d3d9 decl. By the way, who wrote the very first version - I was looking through git history to figure out the proper copyright attribution, and it predates the git tree. I guess we should update the copyright in d3d9/vertexdeclaration.c to list that person if it isn't done already. I was just curious... No idea either :-/ pgp8izRvIRJSo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [3/20] WineD3D: Implement IWineD3DDeviceImpl_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF
Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 00:20 schrieb H. Verbeet: On 24/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you intend for this to be used? In particular, how should this work with eg. IDirect3DVertexDeclaration9::GetDeclaration or IDirect3DDevice8::GetVertexShaderDeclaration? GetVertexShaderDeclaration does not work on fvfs, I did a quick check for that(Though it was too nasty for the tree). The d3d9 lib would have to convert the wined3d declaration back to a d3d9 declaration or leave it as it is now, where d3d9 converts the fvf to a d3d9 decl. pgpZm3e9uA43F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [4/20] DDraw: Get rid of FVFs
Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 09:02 schrieb H. Verbeet: On 24/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +hr = IWineD3DDevice_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF(This-wineD3DDevice, + pDecl, + (IUnknown *) ICOM_INTERFACE(This, IDirectDraw7), + fvf); Is this right? Passing the IDirectDrawImpl as parent looks a bit questionable. Well, I don't pass the impl, I pass the IDirectDraw7 interface. Of course I could create an additional IParent interface, but I'd have to digg it out later when destroying the declaration. As long as WineD3D doesn't destroy the parent behind my back it is ok. It does not do at the moment, and when we change WineD3D from that regard we'll have to adjust ddraw anyway, even if I passed a seperate IParent.
Re: [3/20] WineD3D: Implement IWineD3DDeviceImpl_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF
On 25/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 00:20 schrieb H. Verbeet: On 24/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you intend for this to be used? In particular, how should this work with eg. IDirect3DVertexDeclaration9::GetDeclaration or IDirect3DDevice8::GetVertexShaderDeclaration? GetVertexShaderDeclaration does not work on fvfs, I did a quick check for that(Though it was too nasty for the tree). That makes sense for d3d8. The d3d9 lib would have to convert the wined3d declaration back to a d3d9 declaration or leave it as it is now, where d3d9 converts the fvf to a d3d9 decl. I guess converting back would be the preferred way then.
Re: [4/20] DDraw: Get rid of FVFs
On 25/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I don't pass the impl, I pass the IDirectDraw7 interface. True, but that isn't the issue :-) What I think is a bit questionable is that the directdraw object isn't directly related to the vertexdeclaration we create. Ie, wrt refcounts as you mention below. Of course I could create an additional IParent interface, but I'd have to digg it out later when destroying the declaration. As long as WineD3D doesn't destroy the parent behind my back it is ok. It does not do at the moment, and when we change WineD3D from that regard we'll have to adjust ddraw anyway, even if I passed a seperate IParent.
Re: schannel: Implement SpLsaModeInitialize (update)
Yuval Fledel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+static const SECPKG_FUNCTION_TABLE secPkgFunctionTable[2] =
+ { {
+.InitializePackage= NULL,
+.LsaLogonUser = NULL,
+.CallPackage = NULL,
Please don't use C99 syntax, it won't work on older compilers.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: D3DRM: Thanks a lot, Wine people
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the modifications, I saw that the defintion of vectors, quaternions... in d3drmdef.h was replaced by a call to d3dtypes.h In fact I copied the beginning of d3drmdef.f from the dsound.h file. Can we not modify this file too? No, our headers have to be compatible with Windows, and in particular they need to have the same include dependencies. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using A- instead of W-calls in tests
Paul Vriens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There are several tests where we use W-calls where we could use A-calls to accomplish the same test goal. Most of the time this means some of these will fail on Win9x or WinME as they are not by default Unicode enabled. Do we need write our tests with A-calls ? For Wine this doesn't matter if we're forwarding the call to a W-call. I do think it could matter on Windows or does Windows also do the forwarding? When the call is simply forwarded it's OK to use the A version, since that will test both. Under Windows it will probably be forwarded too, and if it isn't and there are behavior differences then we would need to have the test call both A and W versions anyway. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [3/20] WineD3D: Implement IWineD3DDeviceImpl_CreateVertexDeclarationFromFVF
Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 11:50 schrieb H. Verbeet: On 25/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 00:20 schrieb H. Verbeet: On 24/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you intend for this to be used? In particular, how should this work with eg. IDirect3DVertexDeclaration9::GetDeclaration or IDirect3DDevice8::GetVertexShaderDeclaration? GetVertexShaderDeclaration does not work on fvfs, I did a quick check for that(Though it was too nasty for the tree). That makes sense for d3d8. The d3d9 lib would have to convert the wined3d declaration back to a d3d9 declaration or leave it as it is now, where d3d9 converts the fvf to a d3d9 decl. I guess converting back would be the preferred way then. Yeah, my thought too. pgpEv53dQGRi0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Try 3] [programs/uninstaller] Check HKCU for uninstall entries
Tom Spear schrieb: On 4/24/07, James Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/07, Tom Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This patch makes the wine uninstaller check HKCU for uninstall entries in addition to HKLM. +const int numrootkeys = 2; +static const DWORD maxSubkeyNameLen = 255; const variables should be all uppercase to differentiate them from non-const variables. Imo it's more common to use all uppercase names only for macros. And i think it is mostly done that way in wine. In fact you have to look quite hard to find an all uppercase variable name ;) But are there any reasons why making that a variable at all? #define MAX_SUBKEY_LEN 255 Undid the random whitespace change. Any others? it is still there in try4 - + RemoveSpecificProgram( argv[i++] ); there is one more -if(count != 0) +if (count != 0) + WINE_TRACE(allocated entry #%d: %s (%s), %s\n, +numentries, wine_dbgstr_w(entries[numentries-1].key), wine_dbgstr_w(entries[numentries-1].descr), wine_dbgstr_w(entries[numentries-1].command)); You mixed tabs and spaces, and that line is too long. Who originally wrote this damn code and how did it get by you in the first place? If it's too long, please give more info on how I can make it shorter, while still getting the same output. Especially since I didnt write that line. As a suggestion: uninst_entry *entry; ... entry = entries[numentries - 1]; Now you only need to write entry-xxx instead of entries[numentries - 1].xxx in that whole block and get slightly shorter lines.
Re: [4/20] DDraw: Get rid of FVFs
Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 11:55 schrieb H. Verbeet: On 25/04/07, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I don't pass the impl, I pass the IDirectDraw7 interface. True, but that isn't the issue :-) What I think is a bit questionable is that the directdraw object isn't directly related to the vertexdeclaration we create. Ie, wrt refcounts as you mention below. You're right in principle. In practise WineD3D doesn't use the vdecl parent. If wined3d was changed to make use of the decl parent, then we'd have to change ddraw anyhow, even if I used an IParent interface(e.g. ddraw releases Parent or WineD3D does that). Right now the Parent for the decl just serves to give a valid interface pointer should someone call GetParent. Unless the interface is used by WineD3D in some way I don't think we should allocate an additional object and carry it around all the time, and have extra code to allocate and destroy it. For the other objects I have the rule to use IDirectDraw7, IDirectDrawSurface7, IDirect3DDevice7 and IDirect3DVertexBuffer7 as the parents, except if WineD3D destroys the Parent in a situation where the ddraw object must not be destroyed. This applies to swapchains and surfaces in a container. For this case I use my IParent interface. Ok, design theory says that now we have some assertion about the wined3d vertex declaration that the interface does not destroy its parent, and we should document that somewhere. That goes to the Document WineD3D todo entry :-/ pgpnVF8vs3Msr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Try 3] [programs/uninstaller] Check HKCU for uninstall entries
On 4/25/07, Peter Beutner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Spear schrieb: Imo it's more common to use all uppercase names only for macros. And i think it is mostly done that way in wine. In fact you have to look quite hard to find an all uppercase variable name ;) I agree, which is why I had it with certain letters capitalized, originally. But are there any reasons why making that a variable at all? #define MAX_SUBKEY_LEN 255 No particular reason other than trying to keep the with the same format as the rest of the file. Undid the random whitespace change. Any others? it is still there in try4 - + RemoveSpecificProgram( argv[i++] ); there is one more -if(count != 0) +if (count != 0) Fixed. + WINE_TRACE(allocated entry #%d: %s (%s), %s\n, +numentries, wine_dbgstr_w(entries[numentries-1].key), wine_dbgstr_w(entries[numentries-1].descr), wine_dbgstr_w(entries[numentries-1].command)); You mixed tabs and spaces, and that line is too long. Who originally wrote this damn code and how did it get by you in the first place? If it's too long, please give more info on how I can make it shorter, while still getting the same output. Especially since I didnt write that line. As a suggestion: uninst_entry *entry; ... entry = entries[numentries - 1]; Now you only need to write entry-xxx instead of entries[numentries - 1].xxx in that whole block and get slightly shorter lines. That is very helpful, thanks! Hopefully here is the last try, coming up in my next email. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email
[Try 5] Check HKCU for uninstall entries
Hopefully this will be the last try. Instead of just checking HKLM for uninstall entries, check HKCU as well. Converted all instances of entries[numentries-1].xxx to entry-xxx Fixed a bug with a trace. Ran the file thru kwrite to make SURE there are NO tabs! Double checked the diff to make sure no whitespaces were removed by adding new lines. Any comments? This is sent to wine-patches, so if there are no problems with this patch, it is ready for commit. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email uninstaller.patch Description: Binary data
Re: schannel: Implement SpUserModeInitialize
On 24/04/07, James Hawkins wrote: Can you resend the patch with the value #defined? Sure, the last thing I wish to do is ignore review. It should be in your mailbox now. You actually implicitly found a bug in my tests, which also wrongly made me drop an older version of the implementation just to follow the wrong test. James Hawkins -- Yuval Fledel
Re: schannel: Tests for Sp[Lsa,User]ModeInitialize and GetInfo
On 24/04/07, James Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/07, Yuval Fledel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +#if 0 +/* NULL parameters: All 3 crash as of Windows XP */ +status = pSpLsaModeInitialize(0x1, NULL, pTables, cTables); +status = pSpLsaModeInitialize(0x1, Version, NULL, cTables); +status = pSpLsaModeInitialize(0x1, Version, pTables, NULL); +#endif We try to avoid #if 0/#endif constructs. Just add a comment that states that the function crashes in XP if any of those three params are NULL. Ok. I was following the existing schannel tests example and the developers guide (section 4.2). James Hawkins -- Yuval Fledel
Re: schannel: Implement SpUserModeInitialize
On 24/04/07, James Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/07, James Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/24/07, Yuval Fledel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +if (LsaVersion != 0x1) What is 0x1? If it's not defined in the SDK, then please use a #define to clarify what it means. Also, it would be nice to have some tests for these functions. Wow, you're fast. I was writing the tests email while you're mail arrived. I don't know where 0x1 came from, but the tests claim that this test should be there. -- Yuval Fledel
Server Failure
I'm having the wineserver sparodically return a failure
STATUS_NO_SUCH_FILE I think this is possibly because wineserver didn't
get compiled with a threadsafe errno but I'd welcome other ideas
Heres the context (WINEDEBUG=+server)
0014: new_thread() = 0 { tid=003a, handle=12c }
003b: terminate_thread( handle=fffe, exit_code=207 )
003b: terminate_thread() = 0 { self=1, last=0 }
003b: get_window_children( parent=0, atom=, tid= )
003b: get_window_children() = ERROR_INVALID_WINDOW_HANDLE { count=0,
children={} }
003b: close_handle( handle=0 )
003b: close_handle() = INVALID_HANDLE
003b: *killed* exit_code=207
003a: *fd* 53 - 66
003a: *fd* 55 - 67
003a: init_thread( unix_pid=21133, unix_tid=-1, debug_level=1,
teb=7e09, peb=7ffd, entry=40edf7, ldt_copy=d1f90cc0,
reply_fd=53, wait_fd=55 )
003a: init_thread() = NO_SUCH_FILE { pid=0008, tid=003a, info_size=0,
server_start=1c786d460b0ba38 (-11.5351480), version=298 }
wine client error:3a: init_thread failed with status c00f
Linuxtag 2007 in Berlin
Hi, finally we got a Wine booth at Linuxtag 2007 in Berlin. Everybody who wants to participate is welcome. I have to order exhibitor passes, so anyone you wants to help out please contact me :-) And maybe if anyone has a draft for Wine-posters, this would help too. cu at linuxtag :-) Stefan -- Dipl.-Inform. Stefan Munz. . . . . . . . . . [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITOMIG GbR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.itomig.de Sand 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mobil: +49 178 729 72 72 D-72076 Tübingen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pgphIVngvLwO1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Server Failure
Robert Lunnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm having the wineserver sparodically return a failure STATUS_NO_SUCH_FILE I think this is possibly because wineserver didn't get compiled with a threadsafe errno but I'd welcome other ideas No, the wineserver doesn't use threads. The bug is that the unix_tid field in init_thread() is -1 instead of the lwpid, so opening the /proc file fails. My guess is that you are using wine-kthread instead of wine-pthread. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Winscard support (for smart cards)
Hi, We have noticed that wine doesn't have the winscard dll responsible for the support of smart cards under windows. For the need of one of our projects, we are currently developing this dll for wine under Linux based on the pcsc-lite library. Once done, we'll share it with the community. However, we would like to known the reason behind the lack of winscard support. Is it simply because no one needed it before or maybe there is an issue with the pcsc-lite license? Thanks in advance for your information. Cheers, Mounir IDRASSI IDRIX http://www.idrix.fr
Re: [Try 5] Check HKCU for uninstall entries
Tom Spear schrieb: Hopefully this will be the last try. Instead of just checking HKLM for uninstall entries, check HKCU as well. Converted all instances of entries[numentries-1].xxx to entry-xxx Fixed a bug with a trace. Ran the file thru kwrite to make SURE there are NO tabs! Double checked the diff to make sure no whitespaces were removed by adding new lines. Any comments? +static uninst_entry *entry; You only need this variable in FetchUninstallInformation(). Just declare it there, no need to make it global. +if (!entries) +entries = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, sizeof(uninst_entry)); You can move this out of the for() loop as you only need to do this once. +WINE_TRACE(allocated entry #%d: %s (%s), %s\n, numentries, wine_dbgstr_w(entry-key), +wine_dbgstr_w(entry-descr), wine_dbgstr_w(entry-command)); Better write this as: +WINE_TRACE(allocated entry #%d: %s (%s), %s\n, numentries, wine_dbgstr_w(entry-key), + wine_dbgstr_w(entry-descr), wine_dbgstr_w(entry-command)); It's just easier to see this way that the second line still belongs to the first. +/* If no uninstall information can be found, then display a dialog to let the user know. + * Windows doesn't do this, why do we? We should just catch the error and silently return.. + */ Just imo, but i would rather post this question to the mailing list or just propose a patch to change it. It doesn't really help to put this question in the code ;)
[programs/uninstaller (Try 6)] Scan HKCU
Scan HKCU for uninstall entries. Separated out the trace fix, moved the HeapAlloc for entries outside the for loop, realigned the 2nd line of code for a trace. This patch obsoletes all previous ones. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email
Uninstaller: 2 questions
Why do we show a dialog if there are no uninstall entries found in the registry? Windows does not do that, and I think we shouldn't either. However, on that same note, I think we should, since this uninstaller is not designed to mimic Windows' Add/Remove Programs, catch when a program's uninstaller does not remove it's uninstall entry from the registry, after the process exits, and go ahead and remove the entry. I already have a patch for the 2nd question ready to be committed once my patch to check HKCU is committed, however I am waiting for comment before I actually send it. The first question I will wait to write a patch for, however it is only like a 4 line patch.. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email
Re: Winscard support (for smart cards)
* On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the need of one of our projects, we are currently developing this dll for wine under Linux based on the pcsc-lite library. Cool. Once done, we'll share it with the community. Nice, but IMHO it would be best for the community if you will start doing this immediatelly, not once done. Otherwise you would probably step in a shoes of Transgaming' or Codeweavers' guys, patches from which src trees will have a somwhat hard way into Wine tree. However, we would like to known the reason behind the lack of winscard support. Is it simply because no one needed it before or maybe there is an issue with the pcsc-lite license? Thanks in advance for your information. IANAL, but if it's of BSD license, then that isn't an issue, AFAIK.
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
Hi Tom, I've watched your discussions for a while and have been meaning to comment but have been super busy. The uninstaller was one of the first things I looked at when getting in to wine development and it confused me to no end due to a bug that only showed up when running it under windows. On 4/25/07, Tom Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do we show a dialog if there are no uninstall entries found in the registry? Windows does not do that, and I think we shouldn't either. I agree. However, on that same note, I think we should, since this uninstaller is not designed to mimic Windows' Add/Remove Programs, catch when a program's uninstaller does not remove it's uninstall entry from the registry, after the process exits, and go ahead and remove the entry. The whole windows uninstall process was borked for a long time until the advent of msi. I think we should follow the behavior of newer versions of windows and if the process fails to remove the entry, the next time the user tries to uninstall the application, it should prompt to remove the offending entry. I know it seems dumb, if the uninstall really did work but was just being stupid in not removing the entry, why not remove it? I just worry we will get in to a situation where the uninstall partly worked and uninstall.exe goes ahead, removes the entry and then the user is left with old files floating around. Better to leave the entry and then the next time they try to run it, prompt them to just remove the offending entry. Thanks -- Steven Edwards There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo
Re: [Generic] Add --disable-tests
* On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: This patch adds --disable-tests, but keeps --enable-tests by default, this is very useful for regression testing with a specific app because it saves a lot of building time. Can this patch go into the GIT, any objections?
Re: [Generic] Add --disable-tests
* On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Saulius Krasuckas wrote: * On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: This patch adds --disable-tests, but keeps --enable-tests by default, this is very useful for regression testing with a specific app because it saves a lot of building time. Can this patch go into the GIT, any objections? Argh: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-January/034643.html
re: Winscard support (for smart cards)
I'm thrilled you're working on this! I must urge you to submit code early and often to Wine. The first patch you should send should just implement a stub dll. We can help you with that if you need it. Here's a good example of a new stuff DLL: http://winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2007-April/038141.html By submitting a patch like this, you will pave the way for later submission of more code. - Dan
Re: Winscard support (for smart cards)
Saulius Krasuckas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO it would be best for the community if you will start doing this immediatelly, not once done. Unfortunately, we are well advanced and we can't do it that way due to other constraints in the project. Another bad point is that, since we are not really experts in autoconf and libtool scripts, we started from a pre-configured source tree and adapted the files of the cryptdll library (the simplest one). So we will definitely need the help of the community to integrate our source seamlessly into the wine source tree. Mounir IDRASSI IDRIX - Cryptography And IT Security Experts http://www.idrix.fr
Re: Winscard support (for smart cards)
Hi, If there is a sample implementation or some kinda initial source code. (Just send a initial code) We can try to help you in integrating the code into wine tree. By progressing step by step. Thanks, VJ On 4/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saulius Krasuckas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO it would be best for the community if you will start doing this immediatelly, not once done. Unfortunately, we are well advanced and we can't do it that way due to other constraints in the project. Another bad point is that, since we are not really experts in autoconf and libtool scripts, we started from a pre-configured source tree and adapted the files of the cryptdll library (the simplest one). So we will definitely need the help of the community to integrate our source seamlessly into the wine source tree. Mounir IDRASSI IDRIX - Cryptography And IT Security Experts http://www.idrix.fr
Re: Winscard support (for smart cards)
Am Mittwoch 25 April 2007 18:48 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, We have noticed that wine doesn't have the winscard dll responsible for the support of smart cards under windows. For the need of one of our projects, we are currently developing this dll for wine under Linux based on the pcsc-lite library. Once done, we'll share it with the community. However, we would like to known the reason behind the lack of winscard support. Is it simply because no one needed it before or maybe there is an issue with the pcsc-lite license? Thanks in advance for your information. I think it is because no one needed it before. As Saulius Krasuckas said, it would be better if you sent patches as you develop the library, mainly because smaller patches are easier to review. It is much easier to get a new DLL in function by function instead of the whole thing at one. Of course you can write it, then send it in in smaller pieces, but splitting it up is extra work, and you don't have the change of getting feedback while you develop it(Ok, almost no one here knows about pcsc, so don't expect much feedback anyway). pgprcokqkkkDh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
On 25.04.2007 19:58, Steven Edwards wrote: Why do we show a dialog if there are no uninstall entries found in the registry? Windows does not do that, and I think we shouldn't either. I agree. So a user starts the uninstall app but doesn't see a dialog... and probably thinks it's a bug. On the other hand, just showing a dialog with an empty list makes it clear that there's nothing to uninstall and will probably not produce false bug reports. I just worry we will get in to a situation where the uninstall partly worked and uninstall.exe goes ahead, removes the entry and then the user is left with old files floating around. Better to leave the entry and then the next time they try to run it, prompt them to just remove the offending entry. Or perhaps don't ask but just remove the entry? -f.r.
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
On 4/25/07, Steven Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Tom, I've watched your discussions for a while and have been meaning to comment but have been super busy. The uninstaller was one of the first things I looked at when getting in to wine development and it confused me to no end due to a bug that only showed up when running it under windows. I assume, then, that you have since fixed it? If not, I'd like to take a stab. The whole windows uninstall process was borked for a long time until the advent of msi. I think we should follow the behavior of newer versions of windows and if the process fails to remove the entry, the next time the user tries to uninstall the application, it should prompt to remove the offending entry. I know it seems dumb, if the uninstall really did work but was just being stupid in not removing the entry, why not remove it? I just worry we will get in to a situation where the uninstall partly worked and uninstall.exe goes ahead, removes the entry and then the user is left with old files floating around. Better to leave the entry and then the next time they try to run it, prompt them to just remove the offending entry. Ok, then that is the current behavior, so I will leave it alone. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
On 4/25/07, Frank Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So a user starts the uninstall app but doesn't see a dialog... and probably thinks it's a bug. On the other hand, just showing a dialog with an empty list makes it clear that there's nothing to uninstall and will probably not produce false bug reports. Good point. I will leave it alone. I just worry we will get in to a situation where the uninstall partly worked and uninstall.exe goes ahead, removes the entry and then the user is left with old files floating around. Better to leave the entry and then the next time they try to run it, prompt them to just remove the offending entry. Well, if we remove the entry, we need to let the user know what is going on. Windows does it this way, and the reason is because (at least with some of the smarter users), it will make them realize that they should check to see if there are any stale files hanging around. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
On 4/25/07, Tom Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume, then, that you have since fixed it? If not, I'd like to take a stab. Someone fixed it a while back. I don't know what the cause of the original bug was. When your done with your testing if you don't mind and have MSVC or a mingw cross-compiler handy please check and make sure it still works. I think the ReactOS guys might still use it. -- Steven Edwards There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come. - Victor Hugo
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
Tom Spear wrote: However, on that same note, I think we should, since this uninstaller is not designed to mimic Windows' Add/Remove Programs, catch when a program's uninstaller does not remove it's uninstall entry from the registry, after the process exits, and go ahead and remove the entry. What happens if you cancel the uninstall? Won't the uninstaller remove the entry with the program still installed? -- Rob Shearman
Re: RegDeleteTree [3rd]
Stefan Leichter wrote:
Am Thursday 19 April 2007 12:14 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
Stefan Leichter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+ } else {
+if (!ret)
+ ret = RegSetValueW(hSubKey, NULL, REG_SZ, emptyW, 0);
The function is supposed to delete the key values, that's not what
this does.
You probably need to write some test cases...
Hello Alexandre,
i 'm not sure what you mean with this point. I have now added a loop to delete
all value/data pairs, but this loop is only executed for the default entry
(value NULL).
If the implementation is not fine for you, can you please suggest detailed
test cases to be proved.
Perhaps:
s/RegSetValueW(hSubKey, NULL, REG_SZ, emptyW,
0)/RegDeleteValueW(hSubKey, NULL)/
--
Rob Shearman
Re: Uninstaller: 2 questions
On 4/25/07, Robert Shearman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What happens if you cancel the uninstall? Won't the uninstaller remove the entry with the program still installed? That is true too. I was originally thinking along the lines of checking the exit status of the uninstaller, but whether it is cancelled, or completes successfully, or hell, crashes for that matter, it's not going to give you a usable (in this context) exit status. So I decided to scrap that idea. -- Thanks Tom Check out this new 3D Instant Messenger called IMVU. It's the best I have seen yet! http://imvu.com/catalog/web_invitation.php?userId=1547373from=power-email
Re: RegDeleteTree [3rd]
Am Wednesday 25 April 2007 23:00 schrieb Robert Shearman:
Stefan Leichter wrote:
Am Thursday 19 April 2007 12:14 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
Stefan Leichter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+ } else {
+if (!ret)
+ ret = RegSetValueW(hSubKey, NULL, REG_SZ, emptyW, 0);
The function is supposed to delete the key values, that's not what
this does.
You probably need to write some test cases...
Hello Alexandre,
i 'm not sure what you mean with this point. I have now added a loop to
delete all value/data pairs, but this loop is only executed for the
default entry (value NULL).
If the implementation is not fine for you, can you please suggest
detailed test cases to be proved.
Perhaps:
s/RegSetValueW(hSubKey, NULL, REG_SZ, emptyW,
0)/RegDeleteValueW(hSubKey, NULL)/
I don't expect to get an empty string back when reading the data of the
default value in this case.
Correct me if i'm wrong.
--
Stefan
Re: winetricks: Add Package gecko
On 4/25/07, Detlef Riekenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gecko is required before we can add the flashplayer winetricks is not a part of the wine tree, so patches like this need to be sent to wine-devel or to Dan Kegel. -- James Hawkins
re: winetricks: Add Package gecko
Detlef wrote: gecko is required before we can add the flashplayer I'm a bit confused. Wine will load gecko itself on demand, why do you need it in winetricks? Presumably to get rid of the mouse click required when Wine autodownloads gecko? Your patch seems ok but I wonder if exposing details about how gecko is installed is a good idea. It'd be nice for wine to offer a quiet mode for gecko installation itself. Winetricks really is for third party stuff wine doesn't have control over. Also, are you planning to also add the flashplayer to winetricks? I didn't quite understand your comment. Finally, James is right, winetricks patches may as well go straight to me... - Dan
non-profit question
Hi, In looking at your site and having the ability for people to donate to your organization I was wondering whether or not you are a non-profit or a not-for profit organization? (501 ( c ) 3 or 501 ( c ) 4) Thanks for your time and attention to my question. Ann Wright
Re: non-profit question
Hi Ann, The organization that receives the donations is the Software Freedom Conservancy: http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ which is a 501(c)(3) organization, and donations made to it are fully tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. Cheers, Jeremy Wright, Ann wrote: Hi, In looking at your site and having the ability for people to donate to your organization I was wondering whether or not you are a non-profit or a not-for profit organization? (501 ( c ) 3 or 501 ( c ) 4) Thanks for your time and attention to my question. Ann Wright
Regression in AccessCheck?
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6845 describes two apps whose installs fail because of what looks like a problem in AccessCheck. I attached my attempt at a fix, and it does get those two apps to install, but the advapi security conformance tests fail after applying it. Can someone familiar with AccessCheck / NtAccessCheck have a look? Thanks!
Re: winetricks: Add Package gecko
On 4/25/07, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Detlef wrote: gecko is required before we can add the flashplayer I'm a bit confused. Wine will load gecko itself on demand, why do you need it in winetricks? Oh, I bet you're working on making life easier for the user in http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8163 right?
Re: non-profit question
On 4/25/07, Jeremy White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Ann, The organization that receives the donations is the Software Freedom Conservancy: http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ which is a 501(c)(3) organization, and donations made to it are fully tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. Cheers, Jeremy So we need to update http://www.winehq.org/site/contributing#wpf and have it read something to this effect? Wine Party Fund The purpose of the Wine Party Fund is to show appreciation to Wine developers by collecting funds for developer meetings, such as future Wine Conferences, or in some cases to purchase documentation. The organization that manages our donations is the Software Freedom Conservancy please visit http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ for more information about this organization. The Software Freedom Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) organization, and donations made through it are fully tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. Ways to contribute: -- Tom Wickline Respectable computing - Linux/FOSS
