Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit: On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want once they are found/named? Let's just first find them, that's the hard part. We can figure out where to put the binaries, once we have them around :) *That* is not a big problem. I can take the position for RedHat (at least for 8.0). My base system is stock, so there shouldn't be libs problems (at least for those following the official updates). Should the starting point be the latest RH packaged Wine (including their own patches), or start fresh with pristine 20021031? Vincent
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want once they are found/named? Let's just first find them, that's the hard part. We can figure out where to put the binaries, once we have them around :) *That* is not a big problem. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit: On November 7, 2002 10:42 am, Vincent Béron wrote: I can take the position for RedHat (at least for 8.0). My base system is stock, so there shouldn't be libs problems (at least for those following the official updates). OK, you're on. BTW, if you compile *C* code on RH8, is it OK on 7.x? I think it should, it's just the C++ ABI that changed, right? Just to be sure: there's no C++ code in Wine at all? If not, yes, it should be ok. But I'll test it anyway :) Just in case, I also have another box with RH 7.1 (I can update it to 7.3), so I could provide both (7.x and 8.0) if needed. Should the starting point be the latest RH packaged Wine (including their own patches), or start fresh with pristine 20021031? What patches do they have??? IIRC, it was mostly in the launcher scripts, but I could be wrong. Wait a sec, I'll check exactly what. Vincent
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 7, 2002 10:42 am, Vincent Béron wrote: I can take the position for RedHat (at least for 8.0). My base system is stock, so there shouldn't be libs problems (at least for those following the official updates). OK, you're on. BTW, if you compile *C* code on RH8, is it OK on 7.x? I think it should, it's just the C++ ABI that changed, right? Should the starting point be the latest RH packaged Wine (including their own patches), or start fresh with pristine 20021031? What patches do they have??? -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
Vincent Béron a écrit: Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit: Should the starting point be the latest RH packaged Wine (including their own patches), or start fresh with pristine 20021031? What patches do they have??? IIRC, it was mostly in the launcher scripts, but I could be wrong. Wait a sec, I'll check exactly what. - Copying a global config if none exists in $HOME/.wine - Add a destdir to Make.rules.in (for RPM build) - Some modifications to wineshelllink for RH specific things - Bypass winesetup in winelauncher, copy default instead (RH doesn't ship winesetup) - Don't check for __libc_fork in configure.ac (to work on both glibc 2.2 and 2.3?) - Add XSUB.h in winetest.c (fix 'my_perl unknown' error) So, some of them I'll keep, and some not. Then there's where everything is packaged. For that I'll follow what they have now, unless it's not reasonable. Vincent
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
Andreas Mohr a écrit: On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want once they are found/named? Let's just first find them, that's the hard part. We can figure out where to put the binaries, once we have them around :) *That* is not a big problem. I'd suggest a top-level directory like distrib/ or package/. Hmm, or is there some kind of standard on naming such directories to be used by the various package scripts ? Quite a few projects have a debian/ top-level directory. For others, I don't think there's is; I have seen .spec (for RPM) files (or .spec.in) in the root of the project a few times. Vincent
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 10:33:50AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: On November 6, 2002 01:59 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want once they are found/named? Let's just first find them, that's the hard part. We can figure out where to put the binaries, once we have them around :) *That* is not a big problem. I'd suggest a top-level directory like distrib/ or package/. Hmm, or is there some kind of standard on naming such directories to be used by the various package scripts ?
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 7, 2002 11:11 am, Vincent Béron wrote: - Copying a global config if none exists in $HOME/.wine Hm. Don't know what to think about this one. - Add a destdir to Make.rules.in (for RPM build) I thought we don't need one. - Some modifications to wineshelllink for RH specific things - Bypass winesetup in winelauncher, copy default instead (RH doesn't ship winesetup) - Don't check for __libc_fork in configure.ac (to work on both glibc 2.2 and 2.3?) Shouldn't we do something in the base distribution, so we don't require this hack? - Add XSUB.h in winetest.c (fix 'my_perl unknown' error) Is this for the Perl test framework? I thought we'll get rid of it. So, some of them I'll keep, and some not. Then there's where everything is packaged. For that I'll follow what they have now, unless it's not reasonable. Sounds good. However, if our packages are different from the 'official' RH ones, how are we going to name them? They should be named differently, right? Maybe -w1, -w2, etc. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 7, 2002 11:08 am, Andreas Mohr wrote: I'd suggest a top-level directory like distrib/ or package/. Hmm, or is there some kind of standard on naming such directories to be used by the various package scripts ? I don't think this is important, all we need is for Alexandre to let them know where he wants the packages placed (via ftp in a dir, via email, etc.) The important part is to have a process in place like KDE: 1. Alexandre tags the release 2. Creates the source tarballs 3. Notifies the package maintainers 4. Binary package get built 5. Website gets updated with links to src and bins 6. Alexandre sends out the public announcement This may be too complicated for the snapshots we're doing now, but for 0.9/1.0/1.x it's definitely needed IMO to avoid the rush of users to the site, only to find it not updated, without binaries, etc. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 7, 2002 12:03 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I intended with my remark: Maintaining a package for a distro includes a spec file, specific patches (e.g. to paths, configure, makefiles, other build tools specific stuff), Icons, desktop files etc I see. For various reasons, it has been decided some time ago that this should be handled by the packagers themselves, and it should NOT be in the tree. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 11:30:40AM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: I don't think this is important, all we need is for Alexandre to let them know where he wants the packages placed (via ftp in a dir, via email, etc.) I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I intended with my remark: Maintaining a package for a distro includes a spec file, specific patches (e.g. to paths, configure, makefiles, other build tools specific stuff), Icons, desktop files etc Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found out that pro means instead of (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On November 7, 2002 12:03 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I intended with my remark: Maintaining a package for a distro includes a spec file, specific patches (e.g. to paths, configure, makefiles, other build tools specific stuff), Icons, desktop files etc I see. For various reasons, it has been decided some time ago that this should be handled by the packagers themselves, and it should NOT be in the tree. The spec files etc. should not be in the tree, that's right, but packagers shouldn't need any specific patches to configure or makefiles; if they need that either they are doing something wrong, or there is something broken in Wine that should be fixed. -- Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: This refers to binary packages. I thought FreeBSD usually download source, is it customary in *BSD world to expect precompiled binaries? Yeah, at least FreeBSD is that user friendly. ;-) ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/branches/4.0-stable/packages/emulators/wine-2002.08.04.tgz ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-4.7-release/emulators/wine-2002.08.04.tgz (Yes, I know this is not completely up-to-date, but this is mainly due to the way all the packages are built for releases.) Gerald -- Gerald Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:30:10AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote: The spec files etc. should not be in the tree, that's right Why shouldn't thy be in the tree? Actually, I prefer to install Software (including self compiled sw) via rpm - it makes it much more comfortable to switch versions and you can be sure that there are no old versions lying around after an update - so I'd be happy if there was a file called suse-8.1.spec or so that I could use to build an rpm from the wine package. ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found out that pro means instead of (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 7, 2002 01:24 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: Why shouldn't thy be in the tree? To avoid proliferation of badly built packages. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: To avoid proliferation of badly built packages. Hello? Iff the spec file is bad, then I'd rather fix it then hide it somewhere. I think I've heard that arguement before - was it one for open source perhaps? ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found out that pro means instead of (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 7, 2002 01:50 pm, Joerg Mayer wrote: Hello? Iff the spec file is bad, then I'd rather fix it then hide it somewhere. I think I've heard that arguement before - was it one for open source perhaps? Well, I will not go into this debate, but there are problems in naming packages, etc. If we do have binary packages maintainers, what is the problem? Anyway, don't try to convince me, I can't put them in the tree. :) -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 07:24:18PM +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote: On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 09:30:10AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote: The spec files etc. should not be in the tree, that's right Why shouldn't thy be in the tree? Actually, I prefer to install Software (including self compiled sw) via rpm - it makes it much more comfortable to switch versions and you can be sure that there are no old versions lying around after an update - so I'd be happy if there was a file called suse-8.1.spec or so that I could use to build an rpm from the wine package. Actually you could download ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/meissner/wine/8.1/wine-*.src.rpm, unpack it, drop in a new tarball and rebuild ... Or just use my monthly builds ;) Ciao, Marcus
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
(I'm not sure this will get through to the list, as I am not subscribed, so I am Cc:ing you.) You wrote: 4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers (at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian) Please also include FreeBSD, and feel free to contact me for FreeBSD-related issues, especially concerning this kind of official distribution maintainers. Many contributors (including myself) have been providing patches to improve portability or support FreeBSD-specific features which differ from GNU/Linux and the port should be in a decent shape. Thanks, Gerald -- Gerald Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 6, 2002 04:10 am, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: You wrote: 4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers (at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian) Please also include FreeBSD, and feel free to contact me for FreeBSD-related issues, especially concerning this kind of official distribution maintainers. This refers to binary packages. I thought FreeBSD usually download source, is it customary in *BSD world to expect precompiled binaries? -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:10:59AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: You wrote: 4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers (at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian) ... Many contributors (including myself) have been providing patches to improve portability or support FreeBSD-specific features which differ from GNU/Linux and the port should be in a decent shape. How about providing a distributions directory where the (in)official maintainers for the distributions can just check in whatever they want once they are found/named? cvs allows to give someone write permissions for just a sub-tree, so that might me a comfortable way for the maintainers to provide easy and up to date spec, dep, whatever files/patches for their distros? Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found out that pro means instead of (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
What about reboot.so or similar support? Andreas said he was deffering sending in an official patch. I was willing to take ownership over that (whether from scratch, or based on work done so far) is Andreas isn't interested any more. Shachar Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: This will probably get renamed to Wine 0.9 TODO, after Alexandre's clarification, but I haven't changed the name just yet, to avoid confusion. Once again, what I mean by 0.8: -- Users can start using Wine -- works well for a fair number of apps -- no MS DLLs required (from real Windows) -- User facing stuff (website, docs, etc.) are in a decent state, to avoid scaring them away What is NOT in 0.8: -- stable server protocol: no binary compatibility -- DLL separation: ditto That being said, this is my initial list. Comments, flames, suggestions, are appreciated. A. WineHQ work (Beta at: http://lostwages.winehq.org) 0. Website redesign Jeremy Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. Reorganize the navigational menu There is a proposal being discussed on the list 2. Create some really sexy screenshots -- one app per screenshot, avoid cluttered desktop -- minimize size, if possible by using 'Positioned Color Dithering' 3. Rework the FAQ interface (static HTML, a la http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html, all on one page, with a clickable question list at the top) Agreed on the list. Should be written in SGML, so we can output all sorts of formats. Which means we need layouts, etc. Any takers? 4. Enlist some 'official' distribution maintainers (at the minimum RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian) 5. Create nice page with apps that run virtually flawless They should not require MS dlls, tricks, etc. to run Small explanation, screeshot, optional link to download page, such as Tucows. Carlos [EMAIL PROTECTED] is running with it. B. Documentation work Andy, take it away! :) 0. We need to figure first _what_ is out of date. C. Wine configuration 0. Merge configuration into the registry 1. Write control panel applets for editing it 2. Have decent defaults so we can start control panel without prior configuration 3. Have wizard like app to autoconfigure wine WineSetupTk proposed by Jeremy White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. Make Wine's DLLs register themselves to avoid manual merging of the winedefault.reg 5. Write .inf script to setup a new Wine installation 6. Have a wineboot script for RunOnce stuff D. Stabilize utilities 0. Get rid of the init directive from .spec files Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] volunteered 1. Make sure the .spec file format is fairly stable Any other things that may need changing here? 2. Ensure the various utilities' options are stable Anything here? E. Important fixes 0. Window management rewrite, so we can install apps in managed mode.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 2, 2002 11:23 am, Shachar Shemesh wrote: What about reboot.so or similar support? I've added it as item C6. Andreas said he was deffering sending in an official patch. I was willing to take ownership over that (whether from scratch, or based on work done so far) is Andreas isn't interested any more. I don't know, that's between you and Andy. But I would like to know if someone takes ownership of that, so I can add their name there. If both of you work on it, I can add you both, not a problem, but I'd appreciate it if you guys let me know. -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
At the moment I think it will let you browse the registry but not edit it from the GUI. Rob has agreed to relicense his work but atm he and I are short on time and working on other things. I can do a code drop to you guys if someone on the WINE side has the time to adopt it and merge. If not it will be a week or two before I can try and merge it in my local cvs. Thanks Steven I think Wine would welcome such a contribution, sure. It would be nice to have it available for 0.9, but I'm not sure it's mandatory. What's its current status? -- Dimi. __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 2, 2002 03:17 pm, Steven Edwards wrote: At the moment I think it will let you browse the registry but not edit it from the GUI. Rob has agreed to relicense his work but atm he and I are short on time and working on other things. I can do a code drop to you guys if someone on the WINE side has the time to adopt it and merge. If not it will be a week or two before I can try and merge it in my local cvs. Thanks cool I guess -- there's no huge rush. Not to say that someone on the Wine side should not pick it up... -- Dimi.
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
In the reactos rosapps source tree we have started on a front-end for regedit.exe that uses the regedit from wine/programs. Would you guys like this for 0.9/1.0? If so, I am sure RobD would relicense as his work is based on the LGPL work. Thanks Steven --- Dimitrie O. Paun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C. Wine configuration 0. Merge configuration into the registry 1. Write control panel applets for editing it 2. Have decent defaults so we can start control panel without prior configuration 3. Have wizard like app to autoconfigure wine WineSetupTk proposed by Jeremy White [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. Make Wine's DLLs register themselves to avoid manual merging of the winedefault.reg 5. Write .inf script to setup a new Wine installation 6. Have a wineboot script for RunOnce stuff D. Stabilize utilities 0. Get rid of the init directive from .spec files Alexandre Julliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] volunteered 1. Make sure the .spec file format is fairly stable Any other things that may need changing here? 2. Ensure the various utilities' options are stable Anything here? __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Re: Wine 0.8 TODO v0.2
On November 1, 2002 09:17 pm, Steven Edwards wrote: In the reactos rosapps source tree we have started on a front-end for regedit.exe that uses the regedit from wine/programs. Would you guys like this for 0.9/1.0? If so, I am sure RobD would relicense as his work is based on the LGPL work. I think Wine would welcome such a contribution, sure. It would be nice to have it available for 0.9, but I'm not sure it's mandatory. What's its current status? -- Dimi.
