Michael Stefaniuc wrote:
Hello,
I would keep the old [DONE] items, the page looks better in mostly
green. Could maybe motivate some more people to tackle the last
remaining problems.
Then the page woul'd be a mile long.. we have 56 items on this new page
and since you have your item done it is now
Hello,
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 01:01:49PM -0500, Tom wrote:
> Here is the new revised 0.9 todo_lists it is based on the criteria that we
> talked
> about at WineConf for a 0.9 release.. At this time we have 4 [DONE], 34 [IN
> PROGRESS]
> and 18 [TODO] items. So if you woul'd like to volunteer fo
> The attached example should demonstrate it on Windows 2000 if the default
> printer is a postscript printer. C file and sample output included.
Wrong file - corrected files attached.
printer "Canon LBP-1760 PS"
acceptable range is < 553.33
desktop text size = (8, 16)
printer text size = (41
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:13, Huw D M Davies wrote:
> Interesting. Any chance of a regression test that shows this behaviour?
The attached file demonstrates the bug, but it seems I misdescribed the bug.
The bug actually entails Windows returning absurdly wide widths for some
strings when printing
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:00:45AM +1100, Troy Rollo wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:51, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
> > GetTextExtentPointA/W:
> > TRACE("not bug compatible.");
> >
> > As funny as it is it doesn't say that much. Is this referring to a bug
> > in Windows?
>
> Actually, it does say much.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:51, Fabian Cenedese wrote:
> GetTextExtentPointA/W:
> TRACE("not bug compatible.");
>
> As funny as it is it doesn't say that much. Is this referring to a bug
> in Windows?
Actually, it does say much.
Bug compatibility is defined in TNHD (or the jargon file as it's often nam
Hi,
Since about mid-December, I've had an issue running Quicken 2000 Deluxe using
the CVS version of wine. The symptom is that *sometimes* (I hate that word
when trying to debug!) the program crashes when printing a partial page of
checks (landscape, centered, 1 or 2 checks on the page, not 3)
Seems like one of my patches (keyboard.c - bug #1981) got ignored. I
don't know if I should wait more (it was submitted on February 2), but
just in case I make this post ;).
Should I submit it again, or just wait longer?
Thanks
--
Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
