Patrik Stridvall wrote: >>> In any case having them stubbed in better than nothing. I don't think >> Not really. As I said before, if a program uses these functions, then it's: >> a) Probably a kernel driver (which acre currently not supported) >> b) Won't run at all with stubbed implementation (in case we implement >> "kernel" >> >> From what I've seen Wine prefers to crash instead of returning bogus >> data or unimplemented functionality. > > Any implementation of anything must start somewhere. But OK we can let the > stubs remain in the spec file if crashing applications is preferred and > unstub them for each complete implementation. > > Still applying the patch minus the .spec change won't hurt and is a good > start...
No. Having stubs that won't ever be called in a totally separate file makes no sense at all. Until you have a real life program that depends on this functionality, there is no reason to do anything about them. Vitaliy.
