On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:11 PM, James Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Austin English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Stefan Dösinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Am Sonntag, 30. März 2008 20:46:08 schrieb Austin English: > > > > > > > My comment from the bug: > > > > "How about a little file in .wine or a registry key that is read > upon > > > > running wine, and should match the current wine version. If it > doesn't, > > > > call wineprefixcreate (or pop up an error saying that the registry is > > > > outdated), which then updates that key to the current wine version. > > > > Shouldn't be too much overhead and prevents quite a few problems." > > > In the past I've had more problems with wineprefixcreate trashing my > registry > > > than I had with outdated registry entries. Especially if you have > Internet > > > Explorer or the DirectX SDK or runtime installed running > wineprefixcreate has > > > bad side effects. > > > > > > > We could still store the version of wine last used and issue a (gui?) > > warning if it's old/outdated telling the user to either run > > wineprefixcreate, which may be bad in some cases, or to reinstall > > their apps. > > > > You're missing the point of having a stable wine prefix. After 1.0, > and assuming we can get a stable wine prefix, a user should never have > to reinstall their apps. > > -- > James Hawkins >
I was under the impression that we would still possibly require a reinstall between major versions (1.0 -> 1.2, etc.). If not, then we should focus on making sure wineprefixcreate doesn't trash the registry.
