re: Compiling WINE from source - Documentation needs to be updated?
And while we're on the subject, is "make depend" really needed anymore? I thought it happened automatically.
Compiling WINE from source - Documentation needs to be updated?
I see different advice on the best way to compile in various places. The http://www.winehq.org/site/docs/wineusr-guide/installing-wine-source user guide says to run: $ ./configure $ make depend $ make $ make install The README in the root of the source directory says to run: ./tools/wineinstall Which is the preferred method? Is there any difference? I'm thinking the docs in one of those two places probably needs to be updated. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Compiling-WINE-from-source---Documentation-needs-to-be-updated--tp19694643p19694643.html Sent from the Wine - Devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: LookupAccountNameW() use ACCOUNT_SIDS domain and name_use fields for well known SIDs
2008/9/26 Paul Bryan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> @@ -2532,11 +2532,30 @@ BOOL WINAPI LookupAccountNameW( LPCWSTR
> lpSystemName, LPCWSTR lpAccountName, PSI
> {
> if (!strcmpW(lpAccountName, ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].account))
> {
> -if (*cchReferencedDomainName)
> -*ReferencedDomainName = '\0';
> -*cchReferencedDomainName = 0;
> -*peUse = SidTypeWellKnownGroup;
> -return CreateWellKnownSid(ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].type, NULL, Sid,
> cbSid);
> +ret = CreateWellKnownSid(ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].type, NULL, Sid,
> cbSid);
> +
> +domainName = ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].domain;
> +nameLen = strlenW(domainName);
> +
> +if (*cchReferencedDomainName <= nameLen &&
> ReferencedDomainName)
> +{
> +SetLastError(ERROR_INSUFFICIENT_BUFFER);
> +nameLen += 1;
> +ret = FALSE;
> +}
> +else if (ReferencedDomainName && domainName)
> +{
> +strcpyW(ReferencedDomainName, domainName);
> +}
> +
> +*cchReferencedDomainName = nameLen;
> +
> +if (ret)
> +{
> +*peUse = ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].name_use;
You could move this into the else block above.
> +}
> +
> +return ret;
> }
> }
--
Rob Shearman
Re: LookupAccountNameW() any account but first user rejected
2008/9/26 Paul Bryan Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> +if (!ADVAPI_IsLocalComputer(lpSystemName))
> +{
> +/*FIXME("Only local computer supported!\n");*/
> +SetLastError(ERROR_NONE_MAPPED);
> +return FALSE;
> +}
There's no need to comment this FIXME out.
> @@ -2546,7 +2553,6 @@ BOOL WINAPI LookupAccountNameW( LPCWSTR lpSystemName,
> LPCWSTR lpAccountName, PSI
> if (!strcmpW(lpAccountName, ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].account))
> {
> char sidBuffer [SECURITY_MAX_SID_SIZE];
> -
> size_t sidLen = SECURITY_MAX_SID_SIZE;
You should combine this whitespace change into the patch that
introduces the whitespace.
>
> ret = CreateWellKnownSid(ACCOUNT_SIDS[i].type, NULL, sidBuffer,
> &sidLen);
> @@ -2583,6 +2589,26 @@ BOOL WINAPI LookupAccountNameW( LPCWSTR lpSystemName,
> LPCWSTR lpAccountName, PSI
> }
> }
>
> +
> +{
> +WCHAR userName [UNLEN + 1];
> +size_t nameLen = UNLEN + 1;
Don't create a block for no reason.
Please make sure you're not using excessive stack space in this
function with all of these buffers on the stack.
Also, nameLen should be of type DWORD instead of size_t, which is
platform dependent and might not match the type of DWORD and cause
warnings when passing the address of the parameter to the function
below.
> +
> +ret = GetUserNameW(userName, &nameLen);
> +
> +if (ret && strcmpW(lpAccountName, userName) != 0)
> +{
> +/* FIXME("Only first user account supported!\n"); */
> +SetLastError(ERROR_NONE_MAPPED);
> +ret = FALSE;
> +}
> +
> +if (!ret)
> +{
> +return ret;
> +}
> +}
> +
--
Rob Shearman
Re: Patchwatcher: failed to apply: LookupAccountNameW() passes Expected SidTypeUser test
Paul Bryan Roberts wrote: > This is the SECOND of a series of NINE patches ... When you send a series of 9 patches that depend on each other, please number them 1/9, 2/9, ... 7/9 in the subject line. Otherwise patchwatcher will try to apply each patch independently to current git, which won't work too well. Also, please make sure that tests still pass after each patch in the series. - Dan On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:06 AM, Patchwatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! This is the experimental automated wine patchwatcher thingy. > The latest git sources were built and tested with your patch > "LookupAccountNameW() passes Expected SidTypeUser test" > Result: the patch failed to apply. > > You can retrieve the full build results at > http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/2195.log > and see the patch as parsed at > http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results/2195.txt > See > http://kegel.com/wine/patchwatcher/results > for more info. > >
Re: [3/5] secur32: Basic implementation of schannel AcquireCredentialsHandle/FreeCredentialsHandle
2008/9/25 Rob Shearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Using a signed constant for an unsigned value isn't good practice. I'd > recommend defining a constant at the top of the file like so: > #define SCHANNEL_INVALID_HANDLE ~0UL > > And then using that everywhere that you use -1 now. > You're right on these, of course. Thanks for reviewing.
