Hi Paul.
> Thanks for looking at this, but I'm afraid I'm slightly confused by
> your modified version of the patch ....
After thinking about my way the next day, i made a mistake:
My way was:
- compiling "out-of-tree"
- wineprefixcreate --use-wine-tree /path/to/wine.bin
(but forgot --use-source-tree <dir>)
- then "$datadir" give you the path to the local copy of "wine.inf"
But the last line was my mistake, because "$datadir" was changed inside
"--use-wine-tree".
When the user forgot --use-source-tree, then "wine.inf" is not copied
and your error-message comes up (.. bug in wine or it's packaging...)
The only additional validation, which might be useful, is to alert the
user, when "--use-source-tree" is given, but "--use-wine-tree" is
missing.
> So, sorry I don't see the problem here. Could you explain further?
Afterwards, same for me...
Sorry for that.
> > + topdir=""
> > + srcdatadir=""
>
> AFAIK, this is basically a no-op unless you're up to mischief.
When the variable is set in the environment while starting
wineprefixcreate, the script my use some files from somewhere in the
universe.
> > # Copy the .inf script and run it
> > if [ -n "$topdir$srcdatadir" ]
> I *think* what you mean is something more like
> if [ -n "$topdir" -o -n "$srcdatadir" ]; then
yes, only in a short form.
> The duplication arises because of the previous issues with $datadir
> (which I think is a mistake).
agree.
> Perhaps, if you need to record the source-top-dir it would be better
> to define a $srctopdir inside the switch statement, defining
> $srcdatadir as $srctopdir/tools
of course, that's another way of "do the same"
> I also noticed you made some cosmetic changes to winewrapper, but
> included this chunk:
> - if [ ! -z "$srcdir" ]; then
> + if [ -n "$srcdir" ]; then
> Isn't ``[ ! -z "$var" ]'' equivalent to ``[ -n "$var" ]'' ?
I only want remove the negation, because there is a simple switch for
the test, we need here.
--
By by ...
... Detlef
