Tom Spear wrote:
Hi again all, before I go and file another needless bug, I thought I
would ask for opinions.
I decided to try to run Process Explorer today with wine. When I
first ran it, I got a dialog about missing a function. So I looked
back thru the traces and it was because we were missing acledit.dll..
So I imported that from my windows xp install, and got the dialog
again. Turned out I was also missing netui0.dll, netui1.dll, and
netui2.dll and those in turn needed netrap.dll and samlib.dll.
Once I got all of those imported from XP, Process Explorer now runs
beautifully.
I looked at the version information, and here is the description of each
dll
acledit is an access control list editor
netui0 is NT LM UI Common Code - GUI Classes
netui1 is NT LM UI Common Code - Networking classes
netui2 is NT LM UI Common Code - GUI Classes
netrap is Net Remote Admin Protocol DLL
and samlib is SAM Library DLL
I assume SAM is the Security Accounts Manager service, so that last
dll would go for that and most likely would never be implemented with
wine. But, how about the others? Is doing one of these something
possibly feasible for a SoC project? I'm sure that there are other
projects that use these dll's as well, but I dont know of them..
My biggest question is when is it appropriate for us to build our own
DLL's vs just saying to use native?
I would personally like to at least see the NTLM stuff get built since
I know one of the developers is working on NTLM right now
Also, should I file a bug for Process Explorer needing native dll's,
or should I maybe file a bug to build our own versions of these dll's,
OR should I just leave it alone altogether?
I am creating an AppDB page for the program now. Does anyone object
to me putting notes about which native dll's are needed on that page?
Hi Tom,
please have a look at:
http://wiki.winehq.org/PaulVriens
Cheers,
Paul.
