Re: Purist keyword?
Am 30.10.2010 um 22:30 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: > I really don't see what 'purist' adds, if a game fails because a > builtin dll is missing a function, why would it matter if the game > installs a native dll by default or not? The bug is still in the > builtin dll, whether you use the builtin dll or not. ;) At some point we'll probably change the DLL load order for that particular DLL from native,builtin to builtin, native(via changing DLL_WINE_PREATTACH). In that case all those bugs would turn in to real bugs. Besides, there are situations when you'd prefer not to use any Microsoft redistributable DLLs due to license reasons. Even if they came with the game.
re: Purist keyword?
The keyword might be useful for a pragmatist looking for bugs to fix, who didn't want to fix bugs masked by a bundled native DLL. I don't know how many such people there are, though. Best to wait until somebody says they need the keyword before we add it... until then, we can just use the word 'purist' in the body of the bug as we've started doing.
Re: Purist keyword?
Hi Austin, 2010/10/30 Austin English : > On Saturday, October 30, 2010, Shachar Shemesh wrote: >> On 30/10/10 19:25, Austin English wrote: >> >> I meant bugs that only occur by manually removing native dlls. The >> report summaries are usually clear enough, I was hoping to get an easy >> way to search for them and separate them from 'normal' bugs. >> >> >> >> >> I suspect your use of the word "native" is different than the one defined by >> Wine (see, for example, >> http://www.winehq.org/docs/wineusr-guide/config-wine-main). >> >> Native DLLs, in Wine, are DLLs that come from a real Windows system. This as >> opposed to "built-in DLLs", that are DLLs compiled for Wine as winelib, >> carrying the >> ".dll.so" extension. > > No, I mean native. Some applications install native redistibutables, > e.g. msvcr80 or d3dx9_36. > >> To the best of my knowledge, Wine arrives with no native DLLs at all, and >> thus one cannot remove any. Can you point to a bug report you might tag as >> "purist", so we can all get on the same page? > > Sure. I forget not everyone follows wine-bugs, so this was unclear. > See http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24510. Blur runs out of the > box, but if you remove the bundled native dll (being a purist) the > game fails, because wine is missing a dozen or so functions. There are > several similar bugs. I really don't see what 'purist' adds, if a game fails because a builtin dll is missing a function, why would it matter if the game installs a native dll by default or not? The bug is still in the builtin dll, whether you use the builtin dll or not. ;) Cheers, Maarten
Re: Purist keyword?
On Saturday, October 30, 2010, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > On 30/10/10 19:25, Austin English wrote: > > I meant bugs that only occur by manually removing native dlls. The > report summaries are usually clear enough, I was hoping to get an easy > way to search for them and separate them from 'normal' bugs. > > > > > I suspect your use of the word "native" is different than the one defined by > Wine (see, for example, > http://www.winehq.org/docs/wineusr-guide/config-wine-main). > > Native DLLs, in Wine, are DLLs that come from a real Windows system. This as > opposed to "built-in DLLs", that are DLLs compiled for Wine as winelib, > carrying the > ".dll.so" extension. No, I mean native. Some applications install native redistibutables, e.g. msvcr80 or d3dx9_36. > To the best of my knowledge, Wine arrives with no native DLLs at all, and > thus one cannot remove any. Can you point to a bug report you might tag as > "purist", so we can all get on the same page? Sure. I forget not everyone follows wine-bugs, so this was unclear. See http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24510. Blur runs out of the box, but if you remove the bundled native dll (being a purist) the game fails, because wine is missing a dozen or so functions. There are several similar bugs. -- -Austin
Re: Purist keyword?
On 30/10/10 19:25, Austin English wrote: I meant bugs that only occur by manually removing native dlls. The report summaries are usually clear enough, I was hoping to get an easy way to search for them and separate them from 'normal' bugs. I suspect your use of the word "native" is different than the one defined by Wine (see, for example, http://www.winehq.org/docs/wineusr-guide/config-wine-main). Native DLLs, in Wine, are DLLs that come from a real Windows system. This as opposed to "built-in DLLs", that are DLLs compiled for Wine as winelib, carrying the ".dll.so" extension. To the best of my knowledge, Wine arrives with no native DLLs at all, and thus one cannot remove any. Can you point to a bug report you might tag as "purist", so we can all get on the same page? Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd. http://www.lingnu.com
Re: Purist keyword?
On Saturday, October 30, 2010, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote: > Austin English wrote: > >> I see quite a few people filing bugs that are only exposed when bundled >> native dlls are removed. I think it would be good to be able to group these >> bugs, perhaps with a 'purist' keyword. Anyone opposed? > > Personally I don't see the point. The less keywords is the better IMO. Why not > clarify the problem in the subject, like "xxx doesn't install without native > yyy.dll" ? I meant bugs that only occur by manually removing native dlls. The report summaries are usually clear enough, I was hoping to get an easy way to search for them and separate them from 'normal' bugs. -- -Austin
Re: Purist keyword?
Austin English wrote: > I see quite a few people filing bugs that are only exposed when bundled > native dlls are removed. I think it would be good to be able to group these > bugs, perhaps with a 'purist' keyword. Anyone opposed? Personally I don't see the point. The less keywords is the better IMO. Why not clarify the problem in the subject, like "xxx doesn't install without native yyy.dll" ? -- Dmitry.
Purist keyword?
I see quite a few people filing bugs that are only exposed when bundled native dlls are removed. I think it would be good to be able to group these bugs, perhaps with a 'purist' keyword. Anyone opposed?
