today's git broke winetricks gecko :-(

[Jacek Caban]

Joerg-Cyril.Hoehle at t-systems.com wrote:
> Jacek,
>
>   
>>> - I tried to think positively about it and expected the winetest-1.1.33.exe
>>>   to install Gecko and perform the mshtml tests when online.  Curiously they
>>>   were skipped.  I have yet to find out why.
>>>       
>> Did you read the page from the link that is on the dialog informing 
>> about missing Gecko?
>>     
>
> What part from wiki/Gecko did you have in mind?
> Regarding the above, I see the following explanation:
> http://wiki.winehq.org/Gecko
>   
>> Wine 1.1.33 and later will download Gecko when a prefix is created.
>>     

'If your distribution of Wine doesn't put the .cab file in the right 
place for you, you can avoid problems by putting it there yourself as 
follows: (...)'

> Aha -- I did not run winetest creating a prefix at the same time.
> I created the prefix earlier, running winecfg.  So that's why winetest did
> not download Gecko and why I saw no dialog box at winetest time.
>   

>> I can see three types of Wine users:
>>     
> I don't find myself in the description you gave.
>   

You're a user compiling Wine himself.

> I've a feeling that I'm misunderstood.  I have nothing against
> Gecko.  I simply tend to test apps in a minimal configuration
> environment.  Optional packages like Gecko are not part of that
> environment, and I always saw a risk that a nMB third-party Gecko
> package introduces its own bugs when I want to find out about
> the ones in Wine (or the app).
>   

If you run winetest, you *should* have Gecko installed. Otherwise your 
test results are confusing. Also bugs in Gecko are as bad for Wine as 
Wine own bugs. Consider Gecko as a part of mshtml.dll.

> None but three of the many apps that I've tested depended on HTML/Gecko.
> That is my experience.  Sometimes, when I thought Gecko should be
> needed (to view advanced .hlp or .chm files), I tested with Gecko
> -- or so I thought -- but it didn't help rendering the .hlp pages
> (witness bug #17682).
>   

.chm files require Gecko and if they don't work, it's due to bugs that 
you claim to want to find.

>> allow us to forget about the problem soon
>>     
> What actually is *the* problem?
>   

The problem is that you have to click install during wineprefix 
creation. The fix is to install Gecko correctly.

> It seems to me like "Gecko is not compulsory" is the problem in
> your eyes, isn't it?
>   

It's surely strongly recommended. The configuration without Gecko is 
still possible, you just have to click cancel. No better solution was 
proposed so far.

> This is not my experience.  To me, Gecko appears strictly
> optional, and rarely needed (for the kind of apps that I'm running).
> I've no problem with the Wine team now declaring Gecko as compulsory,
> and would then start to use it.  But the wiki/Gecko page right now
> does not say that it is so.
>   

Feel free to change wiki.

> My problem, namely rm -rf ~/.wine; wine /c cmd or wine xyz
> hanging in a dialog box or believing that it is allowed to access
> the network, then of course would go away
> (at the cost of a larger .wine tree).
>   

Again, install Gecko properly if you don't want the dialog box.


You should understand, that we don't want users to have problems due to 
*lack* of Gecko. Any solution like moving installation to winecfg means 
that most user (at least these, who don't get Gecko from their distro 
packages) will have this problem. You also didn't give me any single 
good reason to not install Gecko properly. Instead you just said that 
you pollute winetest results with your bad configuration.


Jacek