Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Dan Kegel wrote: > On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Octavian Voicu > wrote: >> If you implement a status feature for every trick, you can change the >> main UI into a list of checkboxes, with the installed tricks already >> ticked. > > Right, of course. I had even realized that before. I guess I was > just in 'no' mode... It took me a while, but I finally implemented this in winetricks-alpha today. To get a list of installed verbs from the commandline, you can do winetricks-alpha list-installed In the GUI, the installed verbs now have their checkboxes already checked. Unchecking them does nothing still, though. Please test http://winetricks.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/src/winetricks-alpha and let me know what you think. - Dan
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
Jan Hoogenraad wrote: James Mckenzie wrote: Jan Hoogenraad Jun 14, 2010 8:05 AM wrote: OK. New version of the script: it also finds uppercase filename matches. It also removed: 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 system32/MAPISTUB.DLL 70656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCIRT.DLL 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCRT40.DLL 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/OLEAUT32.DLL These are the files that Wine creates. You may have broken your Wine install now. OLEAUT32.DLL contains partial code that links to a file OLEAUT32.dll.so in the /usr/lib directory (or the file should be there.) James McKenzie Mind the timestamps & sizes. In this case, these files were installed with the installation of an application or winetricks. I am now trying to get rid of as much of this old stuff, in order to be as much wine as possible. You are correct. Just be very careful and not remove any of the 'fake' dlls inserted by Wine. One cannot be TOO careful! Thank you for pointing out the dates and times. This looks like more VB6 run time 'stuff'. Interesting that to OLEAUT32.DLL file installed. James McKenzie
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
Mind the timestamps & sizes. In this case, these files were installed with the installation of an application or winetricks. I am now trying to get rid of as much of this old stuff, in order to be as much wine as possible. James Mckenzie wrote: Jan Hoogenraad Jun 14, 2010 8:05 AM wrote: OK. New version of the script: it also finds uppercase filename matches. It also removed: 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 system32/MAPISTUB.DLL 70656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCIRT.DLL 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCRT40.DLL 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/OLEAUT32.DLL These are the files that Wine creates. You may have broken your Wine install now. OLEAUT32.DLL contains partial code that links to a file OLEAUT32.dll.so in the /usr/lib directory (or the file should be there.) James McKenzie -- Jan Hoogenraad Hoogenraad Interface Services Postbus 2717 3500 GS Utrecht
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
OK. New version of the script: it also finds uppercase filename matches. It also removed: 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 system32/MAPISTUB.DLL 70656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCIRT.DLL 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCRT40.DLL 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/OLEAUT32.DLL Now, is seems that the following files belong to that pack as well: >> 924432 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC40.DLL >> 499712 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcp71.dll >> 21936 2008-10-06 23:30 help.exe >> 995383 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC42.DLL Are they in any way harmful if they stay in system32 ? Or do they contain additional functionality, not yet included in wine ? James McKenzie wrote: Jan Hoogenraad wrote: Attached a simple script which at least removes those files that were installed by another application (possibly winetricks) and are now provided by wine. On my computer, it removed the following files (of which I am unsure of its origins). 17680 1998-08-06 12:43 psapi.dll 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 mapi32.dll 348160 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcr71.dll 258352 2008-10-06 23:30 unicows.dll 65304 2010-06-08 16:58 winhlp32.exe .. based on the date match, I suspect the files below as well. However, there are no files with the same name in the wine directory, and thus my simple script is unable to judge them as being superseded: 924432 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC40.DLL 499712 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcp71.dll 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 MSVCRT40.DLL 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 OLEAUT32.DLL 21936 2008-10-06 23:30 help.exe 995383 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC42.DLL 70656 2008-10-06 23:30 MSVCIRT.DLL VB6, possibly? James McKenzie -- Jan Hoogenraad Hoogenraad Interface Services Postbus 2717 3500 GS Utrecht chk-wtr.sh Description: Bourne shell script
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
Jan Hoogenraad Jun 14, 2010 8:05 AM wrote: >OK. New version of the script: it also finds uppercase filename matches. >It also removed: > > 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 system32/MAPISTUB.DLL >70656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCIRT.DLL > 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/MSVCRT40.DLL > 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 system32/OLEAUT32.DLL These are the files that Wine creates. You may have broken your Wine install now. OLEAUT32.DLL contains partial code that links to a file OLEAUT32.dll.so in the /usr/lib directory (or the file should be there.) James McKenzie
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010, Jan Hoogenraad wrote: [...] > Can wine handle multiple instances of the server for the different > directories, when applications from different start directories are running in > parallel ? Yes. -- Francois Gouget http://fgouget.free.fr/ You can have my guns when you pry them from my kids cold, dead hands.
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
Jan Hoogenraad wrote: Attached a simple script which at least removes those files that were installed by another application (possibly winetricks) and are now provided by wine. On my computer, it removed the following files (of which I am unsure of its origins). 17680 1998-08-06 12:43 psapi.dll 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 mapi32.dll 348160 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcr71.dll 258352 2008-10-06 23:30 unicows.dll 65304 2010-06-08 16:58 winhlp32.exe .. based on the date match, I suspect the files below as well. However, there are no files with the same name in the wine directory, and thus my simple script is unable to judge them as being superseded: 924432 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC40.DLL 499712 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcp71.dll 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 MSVCRT40.DLL 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 OLEAUT32.DLL 21936 2008-10-06 23:30 help.exe 995383 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC42.DLL 70656 2008-10-06 23:30 MSVCIRT.DLL VB6, possibly? James McKenzie
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
Attached a simple script which at least removes those files that were installed by another application (possibly winetricks) and are now provided by wine. On my computer, it removed the following files (of which I am unsure of its origins). 17680 1998-08-06 12:43 psapi.dll 131072 1999-01-15 04:37 mapi32.dll 348160 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcr71.dll 258352 2008-10-06 23:30 unicows.dll 65304 2010-06-08 16:58 winhlp32.exe .. based on the date match, I suspect the files below as well. However, there are no files with the same name in the wine directory, and thus my simple script is unable to judge them as being superseded: 924432 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC40.DLL 499712 2008-10-06 23:30 msvcp71.dll 326656 2008-10-06 23:30 MSVCRT40.DLL 492304 2008-10-06 23:30 OLEAUT32.DLL 21936 2008-10-06 23:30 help.exe 995383 2008-10-06 23:30 MFC42.DLL 70656 2008-10-06 23:30 MSVCIRT.DLL Dan: Can you attach this to http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/issues/detail?id=127 "want uninstall" as I have no access to the Google thing ? Dan Kegel wrote: On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Octavian Voicu wrote: If you implement a status feature for every trick, you can change the main UI into a list of checkboxes, with the installed tricks already ticked. Right, of course. I had even realized that before. I guess I was just in 'no' mode... - Dan -- Jan Hoogenraad Hoogenraad Interface Services Postbus 2717 3500 GS Utrecht chk-wtr.sh Description: Bourne shell script
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
I can not yet see how the lowest common denominator end-user can use this transparently (i.e. for example from the Ubuntu user interface shell). Just clicking on an installation CD puts everything into ~/.wine. I guess in some instances (e.g. installing add-ons or updates on programs) one needs interaction. Can wine handle multiple instances of the server for the different directories, when applications from different start directories are running in parallel ? If this is not the officially documented, I think one cannot expect an end-user to do this. joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com wrote: Hi, Jan Hoogenraad wrote: Each debugging request for wine states that I should remove all winetricks. AppDB should request something similar: minimal use of winetricks. However I have no way to tell, and no way to safely remove them. IMHO one solution to your problem is to learn to use different .wine prefixes. Both developers and AppDB users want a repeatable process to make the app run (or crash). If you install all your software into a single .wine hierarchy (like you'd do on MS-Windows), then you cannot tell anyone what you did to make the app work in Wine. All you have is "I started with Wine-0.9.48, upgraded to wine-1.1.6 at some time, now to wine-1.2rc2, used "winetricks X" and Y, perhaps I used "winetricks directx" but I can't remember for sure, I installed apps A, B and C (they may have installed more components) and I edited the registry a few times. Given all that, app Z works fine in on my machine." This is a mess much like a typical MS-Windows installation. With Wine, you can do better than that. What people want to hear from you is as follows: - Create a fresh .wine prefix with wine-X.Y; - Install Indeo Video codecs via "winetricks indeo" because I found out that the app expects them but does not install them itself; - Install the app from CD; - From a DirectX install into a separate .wine-* prefix, solely copy d3dx9_36.dll into system32/ (or the app's directory) - Change setting Y in winecfg, e.g. native d3dx9_36; - App Z works (or crashes like that ...). That is a minimal instruction set. I have like a dozen .wine-* directory hierarchies. I never use .wine itself except for regression testing, such that I can rm -rf ~/.wine and create a fresh one at any time. That's why I don't need an uninstaller. rm -rf ~/.wine-xyz or rm -rf ~/wineapps/... *is* the uninstaller (.wine-xyz/drive_c/Programs/Apps/ symlinks to $HOME/wineapps such that the apps live independently on a particular .wine prefix). Regards, Jörg Höhle -- Jan Hoogenraad Hoogenraad Interface Services Postbus 2717 3500 GS Utrecht
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Dan Kegel wrote: > I suppose winetricks could create uninstaller entries for even > the little verbs... that would be the windows way of doing things. +1 for this idea. -- 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: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 3:03 AM, Octavian Voicu wrote: > If you implement a status feature for every trick, you can change the > main UI into a list of checkboxes, with the installed tricks already > ticked. Right, of course. I had even realized that before. I guess I was just in 'no' mode... - Dan
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
Thanks a lot. Regarding your comment on id=127 "want uninstall": Could this useage (use winetricks ONLY on a relatively empty .wine directory to troubleshoot) be documented on every place in the winetricks documentation directories ? This is not the way the documentation feels at: http://wiki.winehq.org/winetricks e.g. a short point explaining this, and that there is NO way to remove winetricks will help here. At this point, even the Ubuntu standard wine packaging includes winetricks. This leaves end-users with the impression that they are integral part of wine, and thus maintained. Wine has been maturing. I now have a stable Windows environment, which required a few winetricks a year ago. This was then reasonable. I really will not anymore remove the .wine directory to delete all installed applications including keys & settings. If I can help with starting an uninstaller, I am willing to put in some time: A helpful step for me as a user would be to begin with a few cases that can simply be implemented (e.g. cc580, which I could remove recently due to a bug fix). I also see some application-like entries (7zip, firefox, gecko, python, vlc, wmp) where the package uninstaller may work. Dan Kegel wrote: OK, filed http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/issues/detail?id=127 "want uninstall" and http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/issues/detail?id=128 "want status" - Dan -- Jan Hoogenraad Hoogenraad Interface Services Postbus 2717 3500 GS Utrecht
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Dan Kegel wrote: > If you or anyone else wants to submit patches to implement a way to > uninstall things, please go ahead. The user interface would be a challenge, > though. I'd rather not have an uninstall verb for each regular verb. If you implement a status feature for every trick, you can change the main UI into a list of checkboxes, with the installed tricks already ticked. Any change in tick state would result in the installation/uninstallation of that trick. After clicking ok, you would get a summary of the actions before proceeding: tricks to be installed and tricks to be uninstalled . Octavian
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Tom Wickline wrote: > $ wine uninstaller ? > > Everything wont be listed in the uninstaller, single dll's and font changes > wont be listed. > The unistaller could maybe be used for Firefox, Steam etc.. I suppose winetricks could create uninstaller entries for even the little verbs... that would be the windows way of doing things.
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > > If you or anyone else wants to submit patches to implement a way to > uninstall things, please go ahead. The user interface would be a > challenge, > though. I'd rather not have an uninstall verb for each regular verb. > - Dan > > $ wine uninstaller ? Everything wont be listed in the uninstaller, single dll's and font changes wont be listed. The unistaller could maybe be used for Firefox, Steam etc.. Tom
Re: Two enhancement requests for winetricks
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Jan Hoogenraad wrote: >> http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/issues/detail?id=127 "want uninstall" > > Could this useage (use winetricks ONLY on a relatively empty .wine directory > to troubleshoot) be documented on every place in the winetricks > documentation directories ? That's not quite true; it works perfectly fine on big .wine directories. It's just that they're not such a great idea, each additional thing you install has a chance to screw up the things already installed, and that has nothing to do with winetricks. > This is not the way the documentation feels at: > http://wiki.winehq.org/winetricks > > e.g. a short point explaining this, and that there is NO way to remove > winetricks will help here. OK, I added a note about it towards the bottom of the page. > At this point, even the Ubuntu standard wine packaging includes winetricks. > This leaves end-users with the impression that they are integral part of > wine, and thus maintained. Winetricks is maintained; the lack of uninstall doesn't mean it's unmaintained. > Wine has been maturing. > I now have a stable Windows environment, which required a few winetricks a > year ago. This was then reasonable. > I really will not anymore remove the .wine directory to delete all installed > applications including keys & settings. > > If I can help with starting an uninstaller, I am willing to put in some > time: A helpful step for me as a user would be to begin with a few cases > that can simply be implemented (e.g. cc580, which I could remove recently > due to a bug fix). > > I also see some application-like entries (7zip, firefox, gecko, python, vlc, > wmp) where the package uninstaller may work. If you or anyone else wants to submit patches to implement a way to uninstall things, please go ahead. The user interface would be a challenge, though. I'd rather not have an uninstall verb for each regular verb. - Dan
