--- Paul van Schayck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We do need this for winecfg. If you want to setup virtual drive you do > want to see the full unix fs. Winecfg needs to have to unix paths. > Putting conversion code in winecfg was not really acceptable, an > extension to was. > > This extension will become even more valuable because we want winecfg > (or wine in particular) to start without having any virtual drive. > People might have removed all drives (with winecfg). > > Paul >
But surely, for this particular winecfg program we don't need to add extensions to all of wine, right? I mean, if we extend the API this way, more will come. And it's actually easier to extend than to trim down, so I say we'd better not add this extension. About winecfg, why not have a unix, text-based version of winecfg? More like Linux's make config IMO. Then when the drives are already set up, we can run the 'real' winecfg. William Poetra Yoga Hadisoeseno __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com