Wine's path VS host path

[David Elliott]

On 2002.02.14 22:08 David D. Hagood wrote:
> lawson_whitney at juno.com 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 the programs are directly executable).
> 
> 
>> compiler would look in, say MYPATH, a shell script could easily set that
>> how it liked.
> If I had the source, it would already be running natively. However, in 
> this case I don't - the compiler is for a DSP, and is most definitely 
> Closed Source....
> 
>> *nix current directory is another possibility you should consider.  If
> The project is a rather large one, comprised of over 9000 files in many 
> different directories. Having the tools always in CWD isn't an option.
> 
> 
>> wineserver -p
> 
> Great! One down, one to go. I'll add that to the initial setup shell 
> script.
> 
> Perhaps, one fine day when I'm not trying to get a 160G drive to play 
> nice in my computer, and I've taken the time to get ADPCM working in 
> Wine, I can add some sort of additional path environment logic in.
> 

How about this:

Wine reads your ~/.wine/config in as a registry file.  When you start the 
wineserver you get the server started up.  The first invocation of wine 
reads the config file into the registry.

Thus the "Path" = "...." is actually stored in the registry and can thus 
be changed by using the regtool.  Assuming upon startup of any program it 
reads the environment variables out of the registry and sets them from 
that, then you should be able to use the regtool to append the appropriate 
path from your script.  Then when you run the compiler it will have the 
proper path.

This is of course assuming that the wineserver remains persistent and thus 
further invocations of wine processes do not reread in the config file and 
overwrite what you have done to the path.

I /think/ this will work.. no guarantee.  Lemme know if it does.

> And **I** would actually rather release under LGPL, thankyouverymuch.
> 

-Dave