Am Freitag, den 27.02.2009, 17:57 +0800 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov:
It was not a very nice idea to break bitmap fonts which request a custom
width (therefore a transformation) in a patch that pretended to do something
unrelated.
It also breaks fake italic bitmap fonts, i.e. previously the fake
I saw the previous Wine t-shirt, with the drunken penguin, but it wasn't
really me and I don't think there are anymore anyways. For those of you
who didn't know about it, I don't think it was advertised very well
(maybe we should have had a products tab or links in World Wine News more
Yes!!! See the http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17218
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-February/068752.html
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2009-February/068753.html
2009-02-27 (Fri), 17:57 +0800, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
It was not a very nice idea to
On Do, 2009-02-26 at 10:50 +0100, Hans Leidekker wrote:
+state = 0xdeadbee;
+action = 0xdeadbee;
+r = MsiGetFeatureState(hpkg, one, state, action);
+ok( r == ERROR_UNKNOWN_FEATURE, Expected ERROR_UNKNOWN_FEATURE,
got %d\n, r );
+ok( state == 0xdeadbee, Expected 0xdeadbee,
And, my patch [1/2] is wrong. Dmitry's patch is right.
Additionally, my patch [2/2] has to committed. Because of the other
problem. It's also my mistake.
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17218#c18
2009-02-27 (Fri), 21:50 +0900, Byeongsik Jeon wrote:
Yes!!! See the
Francois Gouget wrote:
---
winetest can detect if twain_32.dll is there or not, and if it's missing
there's nothing to test anyway. Note that make_makefiles will need to be
run.
This patch breaks make crosstest for me:
[apevia:~/w/wine/dlls/twain_32/tests] make crosstest
Now that we support building 16 bit executables,
it seems like a good time to think about integrating
the 16 bit test suite, currently hibernating at
http://win16test.googlecode.com
Any takers?
That's a nice, simple design, but something's missing.
Oddly, the original drunken penguin shirts, or ripoffs thereof, seem
to still be available at
http://www.ixsoft.de/software/products/CWTSHIRTDP-L.html
Original artwork is at
ftp://wine.codeweavers.com/pub/wine/logos/
I would kind of like a
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org wrote:
The version of the native dll, compared to the builtin. I could imagine
a heuristic where if the major version of native is higher than builtin
you default to native or something like that.
I've updated
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/26 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's
browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists.
This will seriously confuse newcomers who are using
the 1.0.1 version (e.g.
2009/2/28 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/26 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's
browse feature acts as if that version no longer exists.
This will seriously confuse newcomers
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/28 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/26 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
Our currently released version is 1.0, but the appdb's
browse feature acts
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a fine attitude from the developer's point of view,
but that means that Wine *doesn't care* about Ubuntu
users who expect to be able to use Wine by doing
add/remove in the system menu.
And I think we do care.
No
Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com writes:
Maybe someone should tell them that 1.0.1 is broken compared to
latest development release. This isn't untrue - 1.1.15 has better
success with a lot of apps.
Basically, someone should tell them that Wine's stable branch is
just a code freeze, and has
2009/2/28 Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org:
Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com writes:
Maybe someone should tell them that 1.0.1 is broken compared to
latest development release. This isn't untrue - 1.1.15 has better
success with a lot of apps.
Basically, someone should tell them that
2009/2/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to
have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software
sources. (See http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration )
Scripts are
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that the first package would be technically outside of the
repository, and would have the same version as the one in the
repository. This COULD make the package manager think there's an
update that needs to be
Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com writes:
I don't see a 1.0.2 being developed though. I'm sure there are still a
lot of bugs that could be fixed in 1.0.1 - correct me if I'm wrong
here.
I don't see a lot of bugs that could be fixed by changes small enough to
go into the stable branch. If you do,
2009/2/28 Alexandre Julliard julli...@winehq.org:
Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com writes:
I don't see a 1.0.2 being developed though. I'm sure there are still a
lot of bugs that could be fixed in 1.0.1 - correct me if I'm wrong
here.
I don't see a lot of bugs that could be fixed by changes
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the
packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package
manager can think that the version from the repository should replace
the
2009/2/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, but I have worked with this situation, and whether or not the
packages are identical does not change what I said before. The package
manager can think that the version from the
2009/2/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
Except that the first package would be technically outside of the
repository, and would have the same version as the one in the
repository. This COULD make the package manager think
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to
have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software
sources. (See http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration )
Scripts are right out, though. It has to be a
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
Oh, I see. You mean that the package manager prefers the local
repository if all else is equal. That's solvable by bumping the
version number of the package that you download from the
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
Say, have we considered making riched20 prefer native?
That makes the app work, too.
A couple of things to note, in case they are relevant:
1. msftedit currently uses the native version by default
2. builtin msftedit will not
2009/2/28 Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com:
Another way around this, as Scott Ritchie pointed out, is
to arrange for what's in Ubuntu to be less stale. However,
there are only two ways to do that: either do a stable
release more often (which is difficult, and which Alexandre
doesn't seem inclined to
How embarrassing! Having to revoke my new (9 days old) gpg key
0x4C40A6D9. Yes, that was a big part of the passphrase for that key in
the CC field ...
-BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: A revocation certificate should follow
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Dylan Smith dylan.ah.sm...@gmail.com wrote:
Say, have we considered making riched20 prefer native?
That makes the app work, too.
A couple of things to note, in case they are relevant:
1. msftedit currently uses the native version by default
2. builtin
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Remco remc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
In fact, it's common practice for repos like rpmfusion.org to
have a tiny package that just adds themselves to your software
sources. (See
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
Their reply is probably well, then do another stable release.
Our policy is that we prefer to bundle only stable releases.
We should at least try! From what I've seen, Ubuntu like bleeding-edge
stuff that likes to break
I went to the trouble of buying a copy of WordPerfect Office 2002
a while ago, and just tried installing it again - but
I seem to have lost disc 1. Anyone have a copy they're
not using anymore? I have disc 2 and a serial number,
just no disc 1 :-(
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ben Klein shackl...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that properly educating new users is more valuable than
telling them click on this magic link that does it for you.
That only works for most users if
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Dan Kegel d...@kegel.com wrote:
Hmm. So making riched20 prefer native would break apps
that use msftedit, if native riched20 but no native msftedit is present?
Yes. Although I haven't heard of this being an issue with people using
winetricks.
Does this
33 matches
Mail list logo
