Joshua Walker wrote:
From futzing with
an XP box at work, I don't see any real obvious way of
locking down permissions on files and such. Right
click/properties on a file gives me the same tierd DOS
flags that haven't changed since DOS 3.0
I've allowed myself to change the order of quotes a little
The one known as "Steven Edwards" hath scripted:
-
The unix security design of users and groups with
permissions is not
bad its just outdated. The nice thing about Unix is
adding new security
modules via PAM is not to bad except they are only for
authentication.
The
Following a discussion on IRC with a new user, we probably want to list
on the Download page on winehq what other packages are available on sf,
besides Wine per se.
Also, besides DCOM95, there are a couple other Microsoft packages that
people are sometimes encouraged to install to get some functio
Kevin Koltzau wrote:
I am capable of building this if needed.
I've put up a copy of winetest.exe built from current
CVS on http://www.plop.org/winetest.exe if you are
interested in taking a look
Excellent!
Running winetest.exe is one of my favourite things to do. :-)
Anyway, I packed it with
I can yes, just need to work out the details
On Saturday 17 April 2004 05:09 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> OK, perfect. Can you do this on a daily basis (from cron,
> say at 4am EST), and do the publishing stuff?
>
hi, I'm wondering if anybody is working on the
WSALookupServiceBegin functions in winsock (socket.c)
.
If not, I would like to give it a try, but I need some
documentation c.q. information on the functionallity
of these functions /what they do etc. Any help
appreciated. Robbert
The following patch is probably wrong, but it fixes my problem with
WriteFile failing when writing to a COM port. The problem appears to be
that NtWaitForSingleObject sends a count of '1' which results in the
wine_server_call in NTDLL_wait_for_multiple_objects returning
'STATUS_USER_APC' which abo
Francois Gouget wrote:
I wrote a teeny test app to check this out and you're right. The static
is crucial. If it's not specified the string is copied to the stack so
that the const essentially has no effect whatsoever (no compiler warning
and no runtime error). With 'static const' we still don't
Francois Gouget wrote:
I wrote a teeny test app to check this out and you're right. The static
is crucial. If it's not specified the string is copied to the stack so
that the const essentially has no effect whatsoever (no compiler warning
and no runtime error). With 'static const' we still don't
Le sam 17/04/2004 à 17:05, Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit :
> On April 17, 2004 3:02 pm, Eric Pouech wrote:
> > change log says it all
> > A+
> > @@ -29,22 +29,21 @@
> >
> > /* TODO
>
> The patch is b0rken.
There's a problem with the attachment (Evolution says it can't analyze
the MIME message), but
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
[...]
> >are declared both static and const. Is the static necessary in that
> >context?
> >
> The static is even more necessary in that context. Outside of functions,
> all static does is limit the scope. Inside functions, static prevents
> the var from
On April 17, 2004 4:14 pm, Kevin Koltzau wrote:
> I am capable of building this if needed.
> I've put up a copy of winetest.exe built from current
> CVS on http://www.plop.org/winetest.exe if you are
> interested in taking a look
OK, perfect. Can you do this on a daily basis (from cron,
say at 4am
On April 17, 2004 3:02 pm, Eric Pouech wrote:
> change log says it all
> A+
> @@ -29,22 +29,21 @@
>
> /* TODO
The patch is b0rken.
--
Dimi.
I am capable of building this if needed.
I've put up a copy of winetest.exe built from current
CVS on http://www.plop.org/winetest.exe if you are
interested in taking a look
On Saturday 17 April 2004 01:12 pm, Brian Vincent wrote:
> I noticed Kevin Koltzau has been playing with cross-compiling, an
As it was written in the Book of "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Now, (8) is not essential for testing, without it we can just go directly
> to the generated page. Again (1) is just nice to have for end users, we
> can test without it. We are however blocking at (2) ATM, and I'm not su
Hello Alex,
I am going to drag this semi-off topic for a bit while I plant some
ideas in people heads.
--- Aleksey Bragin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If ROS will support (and I bet it will!) NT 4.0 security model (or,
> better,
> Win2k then) it would be just great!
> Certainly people with deeper
Cecil Champenois wrote:
I have heard that there is a lot of interest in moving the WINE for
Visual FoxPro forward. About a year ago, a major FoxPro developer by the
name of Whil Hentzen was telling our User Group www.ocfox.org about the
Visual FoxPro work you are doing with WINE. He also demonst
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
So maybe with the testing framework in place, people can start by
submitting a test, waiting for results, and then submitting the
implementation. Very XP-ish :), but also rather cool. One would
be able to easily test a hypothesis in about 24h on a large number
of different
Robert Shearman wrote:
It looks much simpler now, but I don't understand why reversing the
direction of the stack should make any difference.
Because when the DefSubclassProc is called first time the stackpos
should be 0 and so if 0 is treated as topmost subclassed procedure in
the hiearchy t
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
That's why I said that it's an X11 bug and we can do nothing about it.
Please resubmit the patch without that part.
Attached. I will contact xfree and try to fix the rest of the problem.
Maybe contact X.org instead? Gived several linux distrubitions have
On April 17, 2004 10:47 am, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> Is everything else, the Windows service and so on already done?
I think so. Here is the current workflow and status:
1. Tester downloads winrash.exe installer and runs it (one time only)
Chris Morgan / [IN PROGRESS]
2. Cron job builds wi
Filip Navara wrote:
> Robert Shearman wrote:
>
> >Can you not just use stack->stacknum instead of 0 if the stack
> is inverted?
> >
> >
> Of course I can (now that I understand the code ;-).
>
> >I'm not arguing against it and I'm all for it if it makes it
> easier to code,
> >but I'm just trying t
Robert Shearman wrote:
Can you not just use stack->stacknum instead of 0 if the stack is inverted?
Of course I can (now that I understand the code ;-).
I'm not arguing against it and I'm all for it if it makes it easier to code,
but I'm just trying to see what stops you from using the same sta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 16 April 2004 02:14, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes i know that, but i only need objbase.h who doesn't include windows.h
> > (with ms vs headers).
>
> Yes it does, objbase.h includes rpc.h which includ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 16 April 2004 22:40, you wrote:
> Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Changelog:
> > - Use a config entry (instead of the registrry) to control the HW
> > vertex shader activation
>
> Actually the registry is probably a better idea, th
Filip Navara wrote:
>
> Robert Shearman wrote:
>
> >It looks much simpler now, but I don't understand why reversing the
> >direction of the stack should make any difference.
> >
> Because when the DefSubclassProc is called first time the stackpos
> should be 0 and so if 0 is treated as topmost subc
Filip Navara wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> here is my proposed solution for crashes in COMCTL32 observed in
> specific situations while calling the window procedure subclassing
> functions. If there were removed all subclassed window procedures during
> the execution of SubclassWndProc there happened a crash,
27 matches
Mail list logo
