Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Say, it looks like at some point in the past, an alternate
approach was looked at for reserving special addresses:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2255
If that kernel issue were resolved, would that let us get
rid of the preloader?
Not really,
Am Dienstag, 4. März 2008 10:24:25 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Say, it looks like at some point in the past, an alternate
approach was looked at for reserving special addresses:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2255
If that kernel issue were
Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Am Dienstag, 4. März 2008 10:24:25 schrieb Alexandre Julliard:
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Say, it looks like at some point in the past, an alternate
approach was looked at for reserving special addresses:
I've been fighting against the notion that the
wine project encourages cracks for some time now.
Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are
a) illegal (at least in the US),
b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and
c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
One place we still do
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2255
If that kernel issue were resolved, would that let us get
rid of the preloader?
Why would you want to get rid of it? We haven't had any trouble with it for
a
I've been fighting against the notion that the
wine project encourages cracks for some time now.
Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are
a) illegal (at least in the US),
b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and
c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
One place we
Roderick Colenbrander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that here in Europe a crack doesn't have
to be illegal. We should fix copy protection support
but it is not trivial at all... Most games really don't work without a crack.
...
Limiting apps with cracks to bronze is a bit hard in my
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Because getting rid of it might make it much easier
to turn winelib into a normal library, thus enabling
plain old linux apps to at least statically link it in
and thereby become able to use windows dlls
without having to use the preloader.
We could have
But the wine project DOES encourage the use of cracks. It allows some
applications with unsupported copy-protection to run on Linux, but
only if a crack is used, creating an incentive for some people to use
cracks. QED.
The way to stop doing that would be to support copy protections and
make
Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because getting rid of it might make it much easier
to turn winelib into a normal library, thus enabling
plain old linux apps to at least statically link it in
and thereby become able to use windows dlls
without having to use the preloader.
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The scenario I'm imagining is:
Lots of people want to use a particular windows dll in their Linux apps.
Joe Developer writes a nice wrapper library using winelib to hide
the fact that win32 is involved at all.
Fred Developer uses Joe's library in his
Vincent Povirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not clear to me what you want to accomplish by changing the
ratings. If games that only work with a crack become bronze instead of
gold, will fewer people really use cracks? Will they decide, from just
looking at the rating, that they don't want
Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure you can do the ELF magic with a static library, but even if
you could there's a lot more to the initial setup than the preloader;
that's why winelib apps are shared libraries, so that we can do all the
work that needs to be done
Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure you can do the ELF magic with a static library, but even if
you could there's a lot more to the initial setup than the preloader;
that's why winelib apps are shared libraries, so that we can do all
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 04:15:10AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions so that an app
that only works with a crack gets no higher than bronze.
how about:
give it the next state to gold and add a appdb flag, that states may
only work if some put in
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Microsoft encourage people to use cracks? No.
Wine shouldn't either.
Microsoft doesn't need to. Software developers have good reasons make
sure their copy protections will work on Windows (for most people
anyway).
The
Dan Kegel wrote:
I've been fighting against the notion that the
wine project encourages cracks for some time now.
Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are
a) illegal (at least in the US),
b) disrespectful of the author of the app, and
c) much more likely to be infected with malware.
Vincent Povirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact is, by telling people about cracks, and by
giving high ratings to apps that only work with cracks, WineHQ
encourages the use of cracks.
I would object to removing information about cracks
Would you also object to removing high
Vit Hrachovy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in fact a DLL override may be another form of 'crack' - given the
situation I'm not owner of a Windows copy and need to override MS DLL
which is not free to use without Windows license.
That's much less risky. First off, most
Wine users currently
Dan Kegel wrote:
Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other
settings, etc. Copy protection issues are not considered as issues here.
Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Apps that need cracks are simply
not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
-
Vit Hrachovy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apps that need cracks are simply
not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
Copy protection is for me just an obstacle to skip through...
I think you're setting the bar too low on usability.
Software should not require jumping over
For me, only user32, gdi32, and urlmon are failing tests on linux these days.
And there's only one failure in urlmon: stream.c.
Jacek, can you have a look at that urlmon failure?
It'd be cool to be down to just two dlls with test failures!
- Dan
I totally get why you want to make it look like Wine isn't encouraging
cracks, but if that's all that's keeping an app from plat status, one
notch should be enough. How about
Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other
settings etc. Application may not work correctly due
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 13:15:10 Dan Kegel wrote:
I've been fighting against the notion that the
wine project encourages cracks for some time now.
Cracked versions of apps are bad because they are
a) illegal (at least in the US),
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from
apps that need cracks?IMHO Gold ought not to
imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby
potentially infect your machine with malware).
To me the whole
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Vit Hrachovy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Kegel wrote:
Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other
settings, etc. Copy protection issues are not considered as issues here.
Sorry, that doesn't do it for me. Apps that need
Hi Dan,
Dan Kegel wrote:
Jacek, can you have a look at that urlmon failure?
It'd be cool to be down to just two dlls with test failures!
Can you send me urlmon logs? It doesn't fail for me and I can't see
failures reports on test.winehq.org.
Thanks,
Jacek
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws,
you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on
your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll
concede.
IANAL, but since 2008
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from
apps that need cracks?IMHO Gold ought not to
imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby
potentially infect your machine with malware).
Not in principle. The
I'm against lowering the rating for an app that requires a No CD Patch
to run simply because they aren't hard to find or install (normally
anyway) and when used restores full functionality to the game. Much like
having to use a native DLL. Lower ratings should be reserved for games
that have
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:
Gold: Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other
settings, crack etc.
I propose that we change the appdb ratings definitions
so that an app that only works with a crack gets no higher
than bronze.
I have mixed emotions on this -- I
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 16:23:46 Christoph Frick wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws,
you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on
your software. As this hasn't been tested
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:08:19 Kai Blin wrote:
Und soweit ich weiß läuft da gerade eine Verfassungsklage dagegen. Aber
stimmt, das hatte ich vergessen. :)
It's time for another reply-to munging considered harmful post, I guess. I
actually wanted to send this to Christoph. If anyone cares,
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Dan Kegel wrote:
Vit Hrachovy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apps that need cracks are simply
not convenient or safe enough to merit a gold rating, IMHO.
Copy protection is for me just an obstacle to skip through...
I think you're setting the bar too low on usability.
On Tuesday 04 March 2008 17:02:08 Steve Brown wrote:
I have mixed emotions on this -- I can understand the reluctance of folks,
that are only running an app for the purpose of testing, to shelling out
several kilobucks for a license... but I also am morally opposed to piracy
(it's why I got
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you also object to removing high ratings from
apps that need cracks?IMHO Gold ought not to
imply that one has to seek out a crack (and thereby
potentially infect your machine with malware).
If you think about it,
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Guillaume VanderEst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in semi-seriousness, I agree completely. Legalities of cracking aside,
we're trying to judge if the application works perfectly. Wording regarding
cracking should probably be removed from the site as it sets a
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Jacek Caban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you send me urlmon logs? It doesn't fail for me and I can't see
failures reports on test.winehq.org.
False alarm! I had some crud in my tree.
So we *are* down to just two DLLs with failing tests!
- Dan
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up
Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks
Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks
Gold: Mostly functional,
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws, you're
allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on your software.
As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll concede.
This has been tested in the Norwegian court (the famous DVD-Jon case).
It was
On 04/03/2008, Zachary Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Vit Hrachovy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My priority is SW FUNCTIONALITY.
For copy protection functionalities we shall then have separate entries
in AppDB - as I'm interested in my app
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up
Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks
Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks
Gold: Mostly
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might not be a good idea, but we could always introduce a new rating so
that we have
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up
Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks
Silver:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if we should remove the option for 'fully functional, requires
hacks'. A lot of people come to the AppDB to find out how they can make
their apps work, and are more interested in the end
Vincent Povirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we only based ratings on how well applications work out of the box,
a Garbage rating would apply to any app that requires some extra step
to run, even if the extra step is grabbing MFC42.dll and putting it in
system32
This is a valid concern. I think we
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Dan Kegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a valid concern. I think we may end up having to
deal with this by providing an easy, standard way to
install the most commonly needed, legally redistributable
dependencies. For instance, we might bundle a couple
Your patch isn't correct. Just try this:
rm -rf ~/.wine
wineprefixcreate
winecfg
Go to Graphics tab and set any resolution more than 127 DPI (for
example,
150). Close winecfg. Run it again. Now you have 63 DPI (instead of 150; in
fact anything bigger than 127 DPI will not be
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Ove Kaaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The email address in the patch was wrong, sending it again.
From b88a43dbc2234c8b35ee4fa7bb4f275475b8d821 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ove Kaaven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:16:27 +0100
Subject: [PATCH]
I am trying to trace the sequence of screen mode
(resolution/bpp/refresh rate) changes that occur when StarCraft is run
in Windows so that I can make Wine emulate Windows' behavior. Right
now I'm trying to see exactly what resolution, bits per pixel, and
refresh rate StarCraft is using.
Out of interest, what is meant by improving cmd.exe compatibility?
Add support for all the cmd.exe switches and all the dos batch
programming constructs?
I do track bugzilla for any cmd.exe issues regularly and aside from one
which I started work on, I don't know of any other batch issues. I
Dan Kegel wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Vincent Povirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up
Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks
Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks
Gold:
Howdy,
I'm trying to help find memory leaks for wine
http://wiki.winehq.org/MemoryLeaks and I'm having some issues figuring out
Valgrind.
#1 How do you know if Valgrind is working properly (AKA everything is
patched and working).
#2 How do you decifer the output to start looking for
Perhaps use detours to hook the ChangeDisplaySettingsEx function and dump
the devmode structure to a file?
Regards,
mark
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Denver Gingerich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am trying to trace the sequence of screen mode
(resolution/bpp/refresh rate) changes that occur
James Hawkins skrev:
A lot of time has been spent fixing cab/media related bugs in
installers, as the behavior is very fickle (and easily breakable), so
can you please add a test case first? See the multicab tests that are
already in install.c. They will fail in wine because our cabinet.dll
What About:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like this might actually make more sense:
Garbage: No functionality, impossible to set up
Bronze: Somewhat functional, may require hacks
Silver: Mostly functional, requires hacks
Fools Gold: Fully functional, requires hacks
Gold: Mostly
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ove Kaaven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Hawkins skrev:
A lot of time has been spent fixing cab/media related bugs in
installers, as the behavior is very fickle (and easily breakable), so
can you please add a test case first? See the multicab tests that
Am Mittwoch, 5. März 2008 01:38:59 schrieb mark cox:
Perhaps use detours to hook the ChangeDisplaySettingsEx function and dump
the devmode structure to a file?
That's rather complex, a simple C app calling
EnumDisplaySettingsEx(ENUM_CURRENT_MODE) called from command line should do
that as
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:52 PM, L. Rahyen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your patch isn't correct. Just try this:
rm -rf ~/.wine
wineprefixcreate
winecfg
Go to Graphics tab and set any resolution more than 127 DPI (for
example,
150). Close winecfg. Run it again. Now you
Will Howard willz06jw at gmail.com wrote:
#1 How do you know if Valgrind is working properly (AKA everything is
patched and working).
#2 How do you decifer the output to start looking for bugs.
Here's some example output (cleaned up a bit by
my perl script,
Or how about this:
::Wine Compatibility::
( ) Doesn't work at all [Garbage]
( ) Starts, but not very usable [Bronze]
( ) Basically works, a few bugs [Silver]
(*) Works flawlessly [Gold]
::Extra Info::
[x] Needs Wine configuration (Windows version, sound options, regedit entries,
etc.)
[x] Needs
L. Rahyen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This problem was already solved in this patch [1] by Nigel Liang.
Unfortunately, it wasn't accepted and Nigel didn't tried to ask why it was
rejected or to resend it.
I think I will go ahead and resend his patch.
[1]
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Stefan Dösinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 5. März 2008 01:38:59 schrieb mark cox:
Perhaps use detours to hook the ChangeDisplaySettingsEx function and dump
the devmode structure to a file?
That's rather complex, a simple C app calling
Denver Gingerich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gcc -lgdi32 -luser32 -o x x.o -mwindows
x.o:x.c:(.text+0x5e): undefined reference to `EnumDisplaySettingsExA'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
I'm not very familiar with building applications that use the Windows
API with MinGW so it's very
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Denver Gingerich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gcc -lgdi32 -luser32 -o x x.o -mwindows
x.o:x.c:(.text+0x5e): undefined reference to `EnumDisplaySettingsExA'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
I'm not very
What is the best way to narrow down what is causing the crash?
Will answer my own quetsion.
Install mingw
1. Run make crosstest in the releavent directory
2. Copy to exe to Windows and run
3. Modify test(s) to correct issue(s)
4. Rinse and Repeat.
Best Regards
Alistair Leslie-Hughes
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:11PM +0100, Kai Blin wrote:
No argument on the US part. I'm still convinced that by EU laws,
you're allowed to crack an app you bought in order to make it run on
your software. As this hasn't been tested in court yet, though, I'll
concede.
IANAL, but
66 matches
Mail list logo
