Le 12 avril 2010 11:02, Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.dela...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam <niko.le...@gmail.com>: >> Le 9 avril 2010 13:30, Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.dela...@gmail.com> a écrit >> : >>> 2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam <niko.le...@gmail.com>: >>>> Hi Frédéric, >>>> >>>>>+processus clients se sont terminés. Ceci évite le coût inhérent à l'arrêt >>>> sont -> soient >>>> >>>>>+\fIwineserver\fR dans le chemin système ou quelques autres emplacements >>>>>vraisemblables. >>>> "potentiels" or "possibles" suit better. >>>> >>> >>> My understanding was that it looked first in the system path, then >>> tried in, e.g., the home dir or other >>> directories. >>> I guess it looks in a hardcoded list of dirs, or sthg like that. In >>> that sense, "possibles" does not fit IMO. >>> "potentiels" or "vraisemblables" could both fit, but I wanted to >>> insist on the probability for the command >>> to be there (sthg like P[potentiels] < P[vraisemblables]). >>> >>> Frédéric >>> >> It tries PATH and BINDIR (and server/wineserver if in a build >> directory). See >> http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=blob;f=libs/wine/config.c#l480 >> So 'potentiels' or 'possibles' fit better IMHO. > > "Probables" may possibly fit even better (altough "potentiels" should be OK)? > > Frédéric > IMHO, "Probables" or "Vraisemblables" mean that it tries randomly some paths and isn't at all certain to succeed, IOW it sounds really weak ; where "Potentiels" or "Possibles" mean that if wineserver can't be found in a fixed number of (logically computed) places, you need to fix your system because you have a problem. I really prefer the second option.
-- Nicolas Le Cam