On 2002.02.23 23:49 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, David Elliott wrote:
application. Save yourself a lot of trouble trying to figure out where
to
place a hook in wine and simply write it into a completely seperate
program. You can then have wine actually run
On 2002.02.25 15:05 Andreas Mohr wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 11:47:31AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Andreas Mohr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should use libwinecore_XXX.so and libwinedll_XXX.so for the
naming scheme. That'd be pretty reasonable and cleaner/better than
ARGH!!! Why am I sending this.. I /SHOULD/ know better than to feed a
troll I dunno, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (goatse.cx link
included :-).
On 2002.02.16 04:51 Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:02 PM 2/15/2002, David Elliott wrote:
Given the choice of CodeWeavers releasing no code
On 2002.02.16 10:50 Roger Fujii wrote:
Aric Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The simple of it is.. you, Patrik, would not buy a Wine distribution
form us. Why would you? You are a developer, and a wine developer on
top of that.
What seems to be the most commercially successful mode on
On 2002.02.13 20:36 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Gavriel State [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since various people have been saying I'll go if you go, I just want
to let
people know that Ove and I will both be going to the Wineconf.
In case it helps other people decide, I confirm that I'll be
On 2002.02.14 22:08 David D. Hagood wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pity you couldn't use some other environment variable. The entire unix
Yes, but make must also be able to find the tools, hence they are in the
path (I am using Linux's binfmt_misc with the appropriate settings so
that
On 2002.02.15 11:48 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Not only that, but
make uninstall
make install
is broken. I thought that would fix it, but I had to install the wine
binary by hand, and the result is exactly the same. Where there were
symbolic links before are now copies. Besides
On 2002.02.13 23:41 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
[SNIP]
Actually an advantage of a makedep tool is that you generate all the
dependencies for a directory in one step. This means that you only
need to parse each include file once, even if it is included from
multiple .c files. This can easily be
On 2002.02.14 15:25 Plato wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
P.S. For the last time, please do not reply to me directly: only to the
list. PLEASE!
Actually, the ettiquette on this list is to hit Reply All and thus post
both directly to the people involved in the discussion and also to the
mailing list.
On 2002.02.13 13:52 Ian Schmidt wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
To put this back on topic, I don't see any immediate benefits from a LGPL
license. If we knew what the threat to Wine Jeremy hinted at was, it
might
make for a more informed discussion. I also liked Gav's idea about
WineCorp
a lot as a
On 2002.02.13 12:44 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:29:03AM +0100, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
Beside since the Wine likely didn't have a non-stub implementation
anyway, it was probably was what it already did, so the application
crashed anyway without the patch and
On 2002.02.13 01:08 Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:06 AM 2/11/2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm sure the FSF would be a nasty litigant, if you refused to settle
after infringing the copyright of any of their source code. Since the
FSF
doesn't hold the copyright on any of the code in Wine,
On 2002.02.13 04:47 Vassilis Virvilis wrote:
Halo wine-devel people,
Although I understand you probably enjoy one of the
best or worst f^H
debates of all times (who said wine devel is immune to
flamewars after all?
:-) I would like to pose a somewhat off topic question
but still quite
On 2002.02.08 15:03 Brett Glass wrote:
At 12:28 PM 2/8/2002, John Alvord wrote:
Seems to me that contributers should have most of the say
I'm not only a user but a potential contributor, as I
frequently fix bugs in the open source code I use and
maintain for others. I also recommend
On 2002.02.09 04:29 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
If people don't understand that some people are decent and
contribute back
regardless of whether they are forced to or not, but others
are not and
require a feedback loop to force this behavior, then they
don't understand
how the world
On 2002.02.09 05:32 Plato wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 03:50:09AM -0500, David Elliott wrote:
On 2002.02.08 15:03 Brett Glass wrote:
[...]
taxes: It will act in its own interest, not yours. The FSF's
sole goal is to destroy commercial software developers, and
[...]
Give me a break
On 2002.02.09 15:55 Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:11 AM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older
releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an
engine
after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
You might believe me or you might not, as all people arguing against
me last time. Be that as it may, that discussing is dead and I
will in the future concentrate on If the LGPL means what you
say it does, we don't want the LGPL.
On 2002.02.09 13:52 Sean Farley wrote:
Thinking it over. I see no benefit for a change to the LGPL. The main
reason was to force companies to give WINE their changes and/or
additions to the code.
As several people have pointed out, they can get around this by writing
API wrappers. Doing
On 2002.02.09 19:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, David Elliott wrote:
This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. If I need
some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like
to
be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I
On 2002.02.09 18:31 Brett Glass wrote:
At 04:06 PM 2/9/2002, David Elliott wrote:
Yes, the purpose of LGPL is to force proprietary components to be in
seperate relinkable object files.
I wouldn't call this its purpose, just one of its many requirements.
The purpose of the FSF
On 2002.02.09 19:18 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
David Elliott wrote:
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[SNIP]
In some ways it is. Many times when entities are violating
some license
or law a decision is partly based on what exactly their
intentions were.
Although I would
This is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned. I am not
going to cry my eyes out if you don't recommend Wine because it may be
LGPLed. And I'm getting really sick of fuelling Troll Wars 2002.
-Dave
On 2002.02.08 14:48 Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Sean Farley wrote:
Just relax and take deep breaths. :) As should we all.
It's difficult, because I see, once again, how the discussion deviates to
mostly irrelevant topics. Quite frankly, I am very dissapointed with the
On 2002.01.31 16:02 Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:
[snip]
OK. I just downloaded it. I hope I know how to open bz2. :)
I assume that was a joke.
[snip]
Why is the To: field or the Reply-To: not set to the mailinglist instead
of
the poster?
hehehee READ THE ARCHIVES!
We need to have an
On 2002.01.31 17:52 Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 02:33:53PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
But make install prefix=/home/myaccount/rpms/tmp should do exactly
the same thing, unless I missed something. You can run make with one
prefix and make install with another one,
On 2002.01.31 18:37 Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:
I just played around with Thandor trying to install it and see what the
differences are between Win98 and Wine because I noticed a slightly
different
behaviour. Now I discovered that MoveFileEx is not even available in
Windows
98 but wine
On 2002.01.28 02:12 Gavriel State wrote:
There would be no appreciable differences. As I said, this was mostly
something
we were just toying with.
-Gav
Very interesting. I was considering making an RFB (the VNC protocol)
backend for Wine for about the same reason. That is that the
On 2002.01.28 00:44 Zhang Shu wrote:
Dear wine developers,
I have one question on the development of wine. Long(one or
two years) ago I've heard that Microsoft got some hidden
APIs in their products of various windows, and they use
these APIs in their own applications. I wonder if this is
On 2002.01.28 09:03 Daniel Davis wrote:
Hi guys, I sent this to the wine-users list but didn't get any response
so I
thought maybe you could answer this. I am simply trying to figure out
why
Total Annihilation keeps terminating with a code 21. I would prefer to
know
where the list of
On 2002.01.28 16:50 Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Eric Pouech wrote:
IMO, what's important behind version numbers isn't the version in
itself,
but rather:
1] the goal you want to reach
2] the milestones between where you stand and 1]
Indeed. But you see, for an
On 2002.01.20 03:36 Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:
I have already posted this in the NG but I was told that this would be
more
appropriate here.
One of my questions is how wine developers actualy develop their
functions.
I'm aware that some functions are (rather) easily determind just because
On 2002.01.20 12:46 Gerhard W. Gruber wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:38:48 -0500, David Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if the code you contribute could be considered a derived work of
the
code you disassembled then you'd have problems. But for instance if you
disassembled
On 2002.01.18 00:57 Shane Shields wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2002 4:13, you wrote:
The remainder of any even number divided by two is
0, the remainder of any
odd number divided by two is 1.
Knowing this doesn't:
len+=(len%2);
make more sense. Leave the comment as is for
On 2002.01.14 14:45 Shane Shields wrote:
hi all
this is just a little patch to fix the UPDOWN_GetArrowRect function where
the
midpoint is calculated by adding 1 to odd numbers. before it just added 1
to
every number now it tests for odd numbers before adding.
Shane
Thanks Dan for
On 2002.01.15 11:37 Rein Klazes wrote:
hi,
to implement user32.TrackMouseEvent:
Changelog:
dlls/comctl32/ : commctrl.c
dlls/user/ : user32.spec
windows/: input.c
include/: winuser.h
Move the implementation of
On 2002.01.14 13:21 Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Ove Kaaven wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Change Log:
files/dos_fs.c
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fixed bug in DOSFS_ToFCBFormat which caused * to parse as *.
instead
of as *.*
This sounds like
On 2002.01.11 14:49 Roland wrote:
At 07:57 PM 1/11/02 +0100, Joerg Mayer wrote:
It looks like IBM spends its money on the products they themselvs use
heavily, as well as training and making the name of Linux more popular
(aka advertising/PR).
Hmm, I think 10 Million on WINE would do more
On 2002.01.11 23:01 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been following this discussion with some interest. I am a former
Iris/Lotus/IBM employee, and I now run the Winecentric pages
www.winecentric.com, basically a faq on how to run Lotus Notes and other
programs under WINE.
I have had
On 2002.01.12 09:20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
One of the better ways to show the potential to IBM would be to find
one
of
their apps that *does* work under WINE and get it demoed to their
management. Although it sounds like some of them are already
(internally)
using Notes
On 2002.01.10 12:25 Roland wrote:
[snip]
But there are more dangers for the WINE license. It would be possible
for a company like Lindows hire away all WINE developers, effectively
hijacking the project. Alternatively if Lindows becomes a success it
will be able to hire more programmers
On 2002.01.10 14:06 Martin Hoffmann wrote:
Mhhh,
must have been an issue with a not properly installed Wine on my machine
!
As you told me i ran some tests: First with the working 20010731 build !
Then i decided to switch to cvs from 20011226 and did ./tools/wineinstall
!
Guess what,
On 2002.01.02 14:12 Jeremy White wrote:
[big snip]
1. Cygwin installation has *dramatically* improved.
Getting a full working toolchain is no longer
a big pain in the rear end, it's actually pretty easy.
[big snip]
Well, as I mentioned the other day... I have recently
On 2001.12.30 03:34 Chris Green wrote:
If anyone has an odd CD lying around, they can email me the first 65536
bytes
of the CD (hopefully no vendor will care about copyright on their volume
descriptors!) so I can compare the structure of the volume descriptors -
I've
got about 8 of them so
On 2001.12.30 05:10 Chris Green wrote:
On Sunday 30 December 2001 20:04, you wrote:
got about 8 of them so far, just use 'dd if=/dev/scd0 of=cd.dmp
bs=65536
count=1' and compress the result before emailing it to me :)
hmm, wouldn't dd if=/dev/cdrom of=cd.dmp bs=2048 count=32 be
On 2001.12.30 15:34 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
2. The scripts are independent from the compilation environment, which
allows testing binary compatibility. In C you have to compile the
tests under Wine using the Wine headers, which means you can't spot
wrong definitions in the headers
On 2001.12.23 11:10 Gleb Natapov wrote:
Hello all,
Perhaps this was asked before, but I didn't find the answer.
Is it possible to run windows screensaver in linux using wine?
If not, how hard it will be to write support for this?
Well, there are a few issues:
1. Loading wine takes
On 2001.12.19 11:43 Dan Kegel wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
Thanks for explaining what Patrik has been going on about.
In summary:
Consider a proprietary application which ships as a proprietary library
which is statically linked with LGPL libraries at install time in a way
that lets users supply new
On 2001.12.19 12:22 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[SNIP]
That is my argument that avoids all of
Patrick's doctrine
of derived work crap and gets right down to the fact that
it's trivially
easy to make your work fall under the work that uses the
library category,
so long as it is a
On 2001.12.19 12:32 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
David Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now, here's another something to mull over. We've pretty much
established that you could statically link something proprietary with
something LGPL. One question I have is how much of the library
A while ago I started hacking out an implementation of CryptoAPI. It sat
idle for a while and a few days ago I decided to start doing a bit more
hacking again.
The basics of ADVAPI32's CryptoAPI part is that it does nothing except
provide an interface for applications to call into CSPs
On 2001.12.19 20:08 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
David Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What bothers me though is that it does not get Intenret Explorer to
load up the RSA CSP. The LoadLibrary fails because the DllMain
function in the CSP returns FALSE. I speculate this has something
On 2001.12.18 05:09 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[snip]
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
Stop for a movement and tell me: are you against the letter
or the spirit
of the LGPL.
Asking that question is like asking whether I support the spirit of
Communism:
From each according to his abilities - to
On 2001.12.18 06:13 Geoff Thorpe wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
The rest of the suggestion I would like to make may seem somewhat
surprising; dual license this BSD+adv-clause with the GPL. Not LGPL, but
GPL. GPL is an enormous hunk of trouble I know, but under a dual license
you're only bound by it if you
On 2001.12.18 23:43 Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Roger Fujii wrote:
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
Technicalities aside, the LGPL spirit seems to be accepted by most
people.
I have no problems with the 'spirit' of the GPL (or at least, how most
(ie, minus rms) people
On 2001.12.13 18:43 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Patrik Stridvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Umm. I feared that question would come. The protection
the LGPL (or GPL)
that Marcus proposed is IMHO largely an illusion when it
comes to libraries.
Sure we might use a strict interpretion
On 2001.12.13 12:41 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Patrik Stridvall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In short:
Should the Wine project wait until you release or should it not?
That's certainly a question we have to think about, but I think there
is a deeper issue: should we continue to release
On 2001.12.13 21:06 Ori Pessach wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2001 18:44, David Elliott wrote:
Umm, do I sense a little Deja Vu here. IIRC Wine's original license
had
some issues that meant it wasn't GPL compatible. The new license,
which I
understand is a modified BSD or an X11
On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote:
[SNIP]
ot
Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to
the sender and not to the list?
/ot
Because that would be ridiculous. The only way to really accomplish that
is to add a Reply-To which means that it then becomes
On 2001.12.10 16:57 Oliver Sampson wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 16:30:04 -0500, David Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 2001.12.09 17:15 Oliver Sampson wrote:
[SNIP]
ot
Why is the default behavior for the list to have replies go only to
the sender and not to the list?
/ot
On 2001.10.23 14:34 Guilherme Kunz wrote:
Hi,
All programs was compiled with winemaker.
$ ./dlg32
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
$ gdb dlg32 core
GNU gdb 5.0
Core was generated by `./dlg32'.
Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
Reading symbols from
On 2001.10.23 13:55 Marcus Meissner wrote:
Hi,
There was following change to misc/version.c:
revision 1.44
date: 2001/07/27 23:57:38; author: julliard; state: Exp; lines: +1
-1
Bob Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fix the 16bit win95 version.
This makes for instance
On 2001.10.21 18:34 David Elliott wrote:
This one should properly implement all of the Uuid*String[AW] functions
in
RPCRT4.DLL
NOTE, this includes a bugfix to the existing UuidToStringA in that it
does
not allocate enough space to store the string it outputs. (it is short by
2
chars
On 2001.10.22 18:28 Francois Gouget wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, David Elliott wrote:
[...]
Hmm, now that I am looking at this I guess the swprintf is defined in
NTDLL
so I should just use that... WHOOPS, did a lot more coding than I had
to.
I will rework this to use the much saner
On 2001.10.21 16:41 David Elliott wrote:
[snip]
I noticed that most everything else in the file uses get_info() instead
of
calling NtCurrentTeb()-debug_info directly. And since the issues was
that
debug_info was NULL and it seems the get_info tackles this by creating it
this seemed
Francois Jacques wrote:
IMHO, performing code review of the whole tree for missing volatile
keywords
would be a waste of time compared to do it on a case by case basis.
Simply
keep in mind that those bugs may happen - especially with "aggressive"
compilers such as gcc 2.96. If a
Francois Jacques wrote:
Group, This patch comes from investigation of a bug that was observed in
RedHat 7.0 and not observed in RedHat 6.1. After a debugging session that
involved Stephane and I, we found out that it was a compiler issue (which
I feared from the start, but wasn't considering
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
I don't know if you know about The PEACE Project:
http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/
Now I do. :-)
What is PEACE?
PEACE is a set of programs to run Win32 apps on NetBSD/i386
(and other ports
in the future?) box.
I see.
What is the difference from other
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
The court in that case said:
Computer programs pose unique problems for the
application of the
"idea/expression distinction" that determines the
extent of copyright
protection. To the extent that there are many possible ways of
Jon Griffiths wrote:
Hi,
Hmm, glad to see everyone is alive and well again.
:-) Its been a slow week, no?
Firstup, on copyright, I think I was misunderstood. When I say they are not
copyrighted, I mean the author(s) have _given up_ their copyright explicitly.
Each original header file
Gavriel State wrote:
David Elliott wrote:
Part of the reason for rewriting the include files was also for licensing. If we
rewrite the header files ourselves then it's pretty much guaranteed that they can
be licensed exactly the same as Wine. If we "borrow" them then who kn
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
One fly in the legal ointment is that while the headers may not be
copyrighable, the shrinkwrap license may still be legal as a contract.
There's a case where a court suggested that someone who buys a copy
of a product that contains a shrinkwrap license agreement
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Jon Griffiths [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Until we have MS style headers, at least declare msvcrt functions extern "C"
so C++ Winelib programs will link.
I didn't get any feedback to my headers patch. Alexandre, what do I need
to do to get some headers into
Ove Kaaven wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Francois Gouget wrote:
Sure they have the right to deny me access to their mail server, but
to imply that I'm only allowed to connect to my ISP's mail server is
bullshit.
Exactly why? You *should* use your ISP's mail server, that's what it's
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[BIG BIG SNIP]
Personally I don't worry that much. First of all I live in Europe
secondly any kind of regulation of these kind of issues will
IMHO be either logically inconsistant or completely arbitrary.
Neither of the cases are likely to survive in the long run
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the
DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot
reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows.
If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent
it quite the opposite we are trying to to make it possible
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
One intresting aspect concerning Wine is the
DRM (Digital Rights Management) that Slashdot
reported that Microsoft are going to add to Windows.
If we implement it is Wine we are not trying to circumvent
it quite the
Juergen Schmied wrote:
where is the place for HKEY_USERS/Software/... key?
In the recycle bin ;-).
There shouldn't be such a thing. What kind of idiot program created that?
The closest correct thing would be HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software, which would
map to
Martin Pilka wrote:
hello!
* fix the incorrect registry behavior - rename userdef.reg to users.reg,
it contains HKEY_USERS branch
* drop user.reg file because of duplicity
* get rid of unnecessary hkey_users_default
If you absolutely MUST save keys that are directly in HKEY_USERS (which
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's the testcase I wrote:
#define GetObject You cannot use GetObject in this context
#define ICOM_FN(xfn)fn ## xfn
#define DECLARE1(xfn)void ICOM_FN(xfn) (void);
#define DECLARE2(xfn)void
Francois Gouget wrote:
Yes, there is a problem with a change I made recently. There's been
some discussion about it during this weekend already.
Maybe the best for you is to revert back to an old version of
'include/wine/obj_base.h' (or switch to gcc 2.95) while I try to sort it
out
Attached is a simple .c file (not even a program, intended for input for the
preprocessor) and the output when run with the processors from the latest
RH7 errata GCC 2.96 and the RH7 KGCC 2.91.66 (egcs 1.1.2). I included the
output from stderr of the newer preprocessor as well.
This should be a
Jon Griffiths wrote:
Hi,
Definitely, I am not sure how to go about this now though. Should we just
say the hell with it and forward to CRTDLL since our CRTDLL is working
better or should we just move code out of CRTDLL and into MSVCRT a function
at a time (or several at a time)? I
9:07 am, David Elliott wrote:
I am not yet including the testsuite in programs/msvcrttest but I will
be posting that to wine-devel with an explanation shortly.
I have a test harness for crtdll/msvcrt (or any other crts e.g.
borland/watcom) that I've been using to test the crtdll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Elliott wrote:
Okay, this should all be acceptable for inclusion into wine.
The .tar.gz contains the dlls/msvcrt and include/msvcrt directories.
The .diff changes the following files: Make.rules.in configure.in
dlls/Makefile.in
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, David Elliott wrote:
In order to allow __cdecl and __stdcall to be defined correctly without
including Windows headers it is necessary to split their definition out into
a new include file. This include file is then included into windef.h
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
David Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You should definitely revive it IMHO. Alexandre has said himself that it is
inappropriate for C library headers to #include windef.h. The most reasonable
way to do this is to seperate all of the Windows compiler
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
Installfix. Remove old link before creating the new one.
--
/Dennis
Name:
Makeprog.rules.in_remove_link_first.txt
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, David Elliott wrote:
Installfix. Remove old link before creating the new one.
This is the incorrect fix. The correct fix is to use the -f flag (and
possibly also the -n just in case it was symlinked to a directory.
Adding the -nf
David Elliott wrote:
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, David Elliott wrote:
Installfix. Remove old link before creating the new one.
This is the incorrect fix. The correct fix is to use the -f flag (and
possibly also the -n just in case it was symlinked
Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 12:57:18PM +0100, Frank Cornelis wrote:
I wrote a little patch to support INT 13 read/writing of sectors on a
floppy disk.
If it's OK, please merge it with the CVS tree.
...
+ sprintf (dev_name, "/dev/fd%d", drive_nr);
...
Taral wrote:
On 11 Nov, Uwe Bonnes wrote:
So when at some point built-in shell is loaded, this results in
dlopen_dll called for shell.dll and and rpcrt4.dll,ole etc are loaded
from the builtin files unconditional.
How to fix that?
Rewrite wine to compile its dll-replacements as
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
David Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Now that I have that figured out I'll fix all of those
problems and ditch the libwinemsvcrt because the way it is linking now is
actually exactly how I want it to link anyway without needing to do stupid
hacks
Francois Gouget wrote:
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000, David Elliott wrote:
[...]
Okay, I can understand why not to use windef.h. But I figured if its a hack
it might as well really be a hack. I won't use windef.h anymore but will
instead typedef int INT; in the MSVCRT header files. I think
Jon Griffiths wrote:
Hi David,
I was working on crtdll until about 3 weeks ago when i took a months
holiday. I'll be back in a couple of days and intend to start working
on it again, so we should probably discuss some aspects of the
implementation. I submitted a much fixed/extended patch
"Dimitrie O. Paun" wrote:
Well, it looks like it's time for discussions about the future of Wine.
So, here is something that has been on my mind for quite a while now: the
build system.
In a nutshell, we should have a build system that allows building Wine in
a variety of ways: different
Jeremy White wrote:
Okay, I'm hoping we can achieve convergence
on packaging standards and agree on what packages
should look like and do.
However, I think we've got some problems/issues and
I thought I'd try to rehash the ones I remember. If
I've missed any, or explained them poorly,
Ove Kaaven wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, David Elliott wrote:
One thing I was thinking of was the issue of Wine's binary compatibility,
especially from the point of view of codeweavers. I am assuming you are
doing all of this so you can setup an environment for running the programs
"Dimitrie O. Paun" wrote:
From: "David Elliott" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wine-doc: All kinds of wine documentation. Don't forget to use the
appropriate macro for the docdir as some RPM systems use /usr/doc while the
newest redhat has gone to /usr/share/doc to be more
Hi,
I have started implementing MSVCRT for Wine and specifically for use with
Winelib.
Attached are three files, msvcrt.diff, msvcrt_lazy.diff, and msvcrt.tar.gz
The msvcrt.diff contains the changes you will need to make to your wine
source tree (against the CVS of about 20 minutes ago).
The
1 - 100 of 160 matches
Mail list logo
