> Am I missing something here? Not sure. I was under the impression that Winelib apps used wineserver, the protocol for which won't be frozen until 1.0 - this might be what he meant.
On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 14:51, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Steven Edwards wrote: > > >The problem we have with people making and shipping winelib apps at this point is >that with every > >release of WINE untill 1.x we will have breakages. > > > If winelib contains what I think it contains, I don't see why that > should happen. Are you sure about that point? > > After all, a winelib app is a linux/unix app that is dynamically linked > (by name, I'm sure) with winelib dlls that are, today, part of wine. > Both the functions linked and their parameters are defined by MS and > MSDN, and will not change, ever. Bugs may be solved, but as the > application was originally designed to work with MS's implemnetation, > and as a bug is defined to be "incompatible with MS's implementation", I > don't think it possible for a winelib app to rely on a wine bug for > functionality. I therefor don't see how a breakage can happen unless we > have regression in wine. As such, breakegaes should be very rare, not > often. 1.0 or not. > > Am I missing something here? > > > If you want to help people that produce OSS > >windows applications support WINElib then for now, at least untill 1.0 we can only >support > >building winelib apps and not binary winelib applications. > > > That point is 100% understood assuming I accept your previous statement > (which I don't). Reply only if you think this statement holds true even > if your previous one doesn't. > > >Thanks > >Steven > > > > > > > -- Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> QinetiQ