Francois, hmmmm, I don't know why, but this patch did not go. This is what I got.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lostwages]$ patch -p0 < typos.diff patching file wwn/wn19990718_4.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 977. Hunk #2 FAILED at 996. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn19990718_4.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20010611_97.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 373. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20010611_97.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20020213_115.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 623. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20020213_115.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20020807_131.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 361. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20020807_131.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20021025_141.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 553. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20021025_141.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20021122_145.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 598. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20021122_145.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20030516_170.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 404. Hunk #2 FAILED at 414. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20030516_170.xml.rej patching file wwn/wn20030523_171.xml Hunk #1 FAILED at 274. Hunk #2 FAILED at 400. 2 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file wwn/wn20030523_171.xml.rej On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 16:28, Francois Gouget wrote: > Apparently some typo fixes were not applied the first time around. So > here's the second round. It can be applied by doing: > > cd lostwages > patch -p0 </path/to/email.txt > > > Changelog: > Fix common typos in the web site. > > > Index: wwn/wn19990718_4.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn19990718_4.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 > diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn19990718_4.xml > --- wwn/wn19990718_4.xml 2 Dec 2002 17:08:24 -0000 1.1.1.1 > +++ wwn/wn19990718_4.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:40:39 -0000 > @@ -977,13 +977,13 @@ > <p /> > > At present, it is possible to run multiple Win32 apps by starting > -seperate Wine processes manually at the command line, which would then > -start seperate Wine server processes along with the app. These processes > +separate Wine processes manually at the command line, which would then > +start separate Wine server processes along with the app. These processes > cannot communicate amongst each other using standard Win32 IPC APIs, > may have problems due to unserialized access to registry files, etc. > Some of this may be solvable by having a shared Wine server process. > Extending the Wine server model in this way is <b>not</b> what people are > -discussing as seperate address spaces though, right? > +discussing as separate address spaces though, right? > > <p /> > > @@ -996,14 +996,14 @@ > <p /> > > The problem with the shared address space model is that it does not > -provide the memory protection that would be provided with the seperated > +provide the memory protection that would be provided with the separated > model, and that the new process will not have the same memory layout > it would have had in Windows, right? > > <p /> > > If that's all it is, why is it a big deal? Unless I'm mistaken, > -providing seperated address spaces will be a <b>big</b> deal, requiring > +providing separated address spaces will be a <b>big</b> deal, requiring > marshalling of all message data, and various other tweaky-to-get-right > tasks. On the other side of the coin, how common is the use of > CreateProcess amongst the apps people want to run? Is this useful > Index: wwn/wn20010611_97.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20010611_97.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 > diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn20010611_97.xml > --- wwn/wn20010611_97.xml 2 Dec 2002 17:08:15 -0000 1.1.1.1 > +++ wwn/wn20010611_97.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:01 -0000 > @@ -372,7 +373,7 @@ > <quote who="Patrick Stridvall"> > <p>However regardless of this, uname shouldn't be used > (at least not directly). Autoconf provides a standard > -way to do this (which BTW happends to use uname). > +way to do this (which BTW happens to use uname). > It can be used as below.</p> > <p><code>AC_CANONICAL_HOST<br /> > > Index: wwn/wn20020213_115.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20020213_115.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 > diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn20020213_115.xml > --- wwn/wn20020213_115.xml 2 Dec 2002 17:08:21 -0000 1.1.1.1 > +++ wwn/wn20020213_115.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:11 -0000 > @@ -622,7 +623,7 @@ > contribute significantly to the project. Only the developers contribute, > and it is not at all clear to me that they would stop.</p> > > -<p>Marcus Meissner has already shown that the existance of our AFPLed DCOM > +<p>Marcus Meissner has already shown that the existence of our AFPLed DCOM > code didn't stop him from going ahead and doing it himself. On the > contrary - it helped him, since he got hints from our design. It's a shame > that he had to, since we've been working hard to find a way to contribute > Index: wwn/wn20020807_131.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20020807_131.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.1.1.1 > diff -u -r1.1.1.1 wn20020807_131.xml > --- wwn/wn20020807_131.xml 2 Dec 2002 17:08:38 -0000 1.1.1.1 > +++ wwn/wn20020807_131.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:21 -0000 > @@ -359,7 +361,7 @@ > registries in addition to compiling wine so most of the time if you > already have these set up then it is not nessesary to use wineinstall. > </p><p> > - However the structure of both the .wine/config and registries and thier > + However the structure of both the .wine/config and registries and their > contents has changed over time and as new features are added to wine. > For example over time more functionality has been added to the various > dlls and in the default config file various dlls now default to builtin > Index: wwn/wn20021025_141.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20021025_141.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.2 > diff -u -r1.2 wn20021025_141.xml > --- wwn/wn20021025_141.xml 9 Jun 2003 15:18:38 -0000 1.2 > +++ wwn/wn20021025_141.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:25 -0000 > @@ -552,7 +553,7 @@ > to do page rendering and such.</p> > > <p>Malte replied, <quote who="Malte Starostik"> > -Hmm, we're implementing the absolutely neccessary parts in reaktivate > +Hmm, we're implementing the absolutely necessary parts in reaktivate > with Konqueror, but that's run from inside Konq already, so it's a bit > special. Maybe there would be a way to use either browser with those > interfaces? :-)</quote></p> > Index: wwn/wn20021122_145.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20021122_145.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -r1.1 wn20021122_145.xml > --- wwn/wn20021122_145.xml 2 Dec 2002 17:40:34 -0000 1.1 > +++ wwn/wn20021122_145.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:28 -0000 > @@ -597,14 +598,14 @@ > reentrent variant if present as well as having an > alternative implementation if not. > </p><p> > -As to the implict existance question: I'm not sure. > +As to the implict existence question: I'm not sure. > First of all, to answer the related question: > Should you have a alternative implementation for > defined(HAVE_GETPWUID) && !defined(HAVE_GETPWNAM)? > </p><p> > IMHO the answer is no. It is not worth the effort to > support hypotetical platforms unless we can verify the > -existance of one. > +existence of one. > </p><p> > To return to the original question: > I suggest that we should detect the presence or absence > Index: wwn/wn20030516_170.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20030516_170.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.2 > diff -u -r1.2 wn20030516_170.xml > --- wwn/wn20030516_170.xml 9 Jun 2003 15:18:38 -0000 1.2 > +++ wwn/wn20030516_170.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:40 -0000 > @@ -403,7 +404,7 @@ > > </section><section > title="Separating 16/32 Bit OLE Functions" > - subject="PATCH - Start seperating 16/32 in Ole and ole32 memlockbytes" > + subject="PATCH - Start separating 16/32 in Ole and ole32 memlockbytes" > archive="http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2003/05/0404.html"; > posts="2" > startdate="05/15/2003" > @@ -413,7 +414,7 @@ > OLE32. He gave an update of what he's trying to do and some of > the issues involved:</p> > <quote who="Steven Edwards"><p> > - I am doing some work trying to seperate Ole* and Ole32 for use in > + I am doing some work trying to separate Ole* and Ole32 for use in > ReactOS. Before we can make use of most of the WINE code all of the > Non-Win32api imported functions are going to need to be compiled out or > rewitten. I dont need someone to do this for me but I am going to need a > Index: wwn/wn20030523_171.xml > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/wine/lostwages/wwn/wn20030523_171.xml,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -r1.1 wn20030523_171.xml > --- wwn/wn20030523_171.xml 27 May 2003 14:25:49 -0000 1.1 > +++ wwn/wn20030523_171.xml 9 Jun 2003 20:41:41 -0000 > @@ -273,7 +274,7 @@ > At one point Dimi thought a dsp2make utility would be a useful addition and Steven > mentioned ReactOS had one. He went on to discuss some future plans, > <quote who="Steven Edwards"> > - My goal if the ReactOS guys can get more then winhello working is to have WINEs > + My goal if the ReactOS guys can get more than winhello working is to have WINEs > shell32 and comctl32 running for Linux world</quote>. </p> > > <p>All in all the meeting was quite successful and a lot of people were glad to > @@ -399,7 +400,7 @@ > will put in the new interface (that will also let me implement some of > GetCharacterProperties more obscure features). That is not likely to > happen. I suspect FriBidi has fallen off the end of the earth. It does > -not implement mirroring, nor does it implement Arabic Shaping (wierd, > +not implement mirroring, nor does it implement Arabic Shaping (weird, > considering that the maintainer is from Iran). It only supports UCS-4. > </p><p> > Also - like I told Mike H on IRC, static linking ICU will mean that we -- Jeremy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
