On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Rosanne DiMesio <dime...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> It sounds like the problem is that the version string in appdb isn't >> descriptive enough. It's perfectly reasonable to wonder if a given >> program can be made to work with a patched version of wine, and wonder >> how well it will work. It's also reasonable to wonder how it will >> work with a vanilla version. Both types of reports are useful to have >> in the appdb. Having a version "x.x.x (patched)" available to >> reporters would allow both types of reports to be clearly separated. >> > > Patched with what? Lumping all the different possibilities into one "version" > is also misleading.
Perfect information isn't necessary here. It's just useful to know what kind of performance you can get if you decide to venture into the world of patching and recompiling. Experts will know if it's worth their time, newbies will know to stay away. Cheers, -n8 -- Nathan Gray http://www.n8gray.org/
