Hi, Should I consider second solution ? Or perhaps adding a comment explaining why we use the second provider type key would be enough ?
Original patch is available at [1] for reference. [1] http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-October/063475.html Bye, Nicolas Le Cam 2008/10/20 Nicolas Le Cam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi, > > Sometimes, the first Provider Type key (Microsoft Base Cryptographic > Provider v1.0) doesn't have a TypeName subkey. It's the case on my Win2k > box and according to test.winehq.org it seems to be the case for some > other Win2k and Win98 boxes. So check for the second Provider Type > instead. > > Checked on Win2k SP4 and WinXP SP3. > > We can also get rid of that skip by enumerating the Provider Type keys > until we find one that fit our needs in FindProvTypesRegVals(). Tell me > if this way is preferred, I will provide a modified patch. > > Regards, > Nicolas Le Cam