wine/ misc/registry.c documentation/samples/config
mike at navi.cx
Sun Mar 13 09:18:52 CST 2005
On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 16:31 +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> The tool you propose is not it, as I said in my first post, "Dynamic" is
> the only solution for what I was talking about, i.e. the use of same
Hmm, I don't see why. You realise we can't write to the native registry
yes? So using a native registry with the old code was equivalent to
doing an import each time you started Wine. For the case where you
install under Windows then run under Wine, you only need one import
anyway. For cases where you change settings under Windows and expect
them to be reflected in Wine but not vice-versa, then yes you'd have to
use winecfg to reimport each time (but this is functionally equivalent
and could be easily shell scripted).
> That is because it is the type of people you will not here about.
> You must admit that AJ is the most allegeable in making AJ happy. So if
> he removed it, what are the chances I'll make him happy?
> If Winecfg breaks such basic functionality, than it is badly designed,
> and should be rethought. I don't want to go into a technical argument
> here. A registry bootstrapping registry is probably a difficult task.
Well exactly. It was removed for technical reasons to do with the switch
to a single registry, not winecfg per se.
> You need a seed registry that can later in the boot, merge with a bigger
> registry. Hence the use of config file before. On windows I do not have
> control on the registry files used, and I cannot share them with other
> installations. So I guess why Wine should be different. But Wine is
> different, it was different. What is more important? Native registry
> support or No Config file. I would prefer both …
We could probably use an environment variable, or auto-detect it in
More information about the wine-devel