As Chris Morgan pointed out, http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings might need clarification. It now says -- snip -- Platinum An application can be rated as Platinum if it installs and runs "out of the box" No changes required to winecfg. Gold Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. Silver Application works excellently for 'normal' use; a game works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, Windows Media Player works fine as a plug-in and stand-alone player, but can't handle DRM etc. -- snip -- I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous: -- snip -- Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating. Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating.

Silver Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may be broken. For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings, but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be required. -- snip -- What do people think? - Dan

On 03.01.2007 04:00, Dan Kegel wrote: Giving a set of points may lead to some people think "hey to run MyApplication I just have to <some obscure workaround>. It's not in the list, so lets rate it platinum!". So maybe put some generalized criterium in front of that list: "The application should install and run on a fresh, unmodified Wine, from original installation media. That means, among other things, no manual editing of files, ..." OTOH, there are not much "obscure workarounds" not covered by that list. Manually editing the registry might be one that should be be disallowed. Also, you mentioned apps that only run as root; this might be worthwhile to disallow, too. -f.r.

I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous:

Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating. Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating.

As Chris Morgan pointed out, http://appdb.winehq.org/help/?sTopic=maintainer_ratings might need clarification. It now says -- snip -- Platinum An application can be rated as Platinum if it installs and runs "out of the box" No changes required to winecfg. Gold Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other settings, crack etc. Silver Application works excellently for 'normal' use; a game works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, Windows Media Player works fine as a plug-in and stand-alone player, but can't handle DRM etc. -- snip -- I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather more rigorous: -- snip -- Platinum Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum rating. Gold Gold applications install normally and run well. Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable to the average user. No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold rating. Silver Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may be broken. For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but not in multi-player, or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings, but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be required. -- snip -- What do people think? - Dan

Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.

If multiplayer support is broken, how on earth can a game be considered anything but bronze? A huge chunk of the functionality is missing!

They might be illegal in the US, but that doesn't mean they are illegal in other countries.

Copy protection is already implemented for some games. When it works for all games, we won't have to link to cracks. :)

You really expect people to have to read HOWTOs? Windows users certainly don't expect to, why should Wine users?

I dislike the idea of adding even more rating levels (diamond, etc.); that just adds to confusion.

Also, I am dismayed that some people think cracks are OK. They're illegal, last time I checked, and I don't think winehq should advocate their use.

How about this: I hear that Alexandre is going to be working on implementing copy protection soon. Once he has that implemented for at least one popular application, how about we revisit the appdb ratings question?

Exactly, we need some logic to ensure ratings are correct. I think the fundamental change is that we should remove maintainer ratings entirely and be driven by the test results.

On 03 Jan 2007 16:34:21 +0200, Kari Hurtta &lt;hurtta+gmane(a)siilo.fmi.fi&gt; wrote: I agree, the rating isn't correct. We aren't going to be able to avoid issues with mis-rated applications though, so discussing language changes is only going to clarify the issue not entirely prevent them. In this case the maintainer of the application should be made aware of this issue and should take care of correcting the rating. Chris

On 03 Jan 2007 22:46:31 +0200, Kari Hurtta &lt;hurtta+gmane(a)siilo.fmi.fi&gt; wrote: Exactly, we need some logic to ensure ratings are correct. I think the fundamental change is that we should remove maintainer ratings entirely and be driven by the test results. This way the rating of the application depends on how well users can get it to run on their platform under wine instead of an experts opinion. Chris

Onsdag 03 januar 2007 21:46, skrev Kari Hurtta: gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel: wrote: For test results? It already does that.

Kari Hurtta &lt;hurtta+gmane(a)siilo.fmi.fi&gt; writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel: Look test results for http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?iVersionId=928&iTestingId=8285 There is N/A on Installs? -column

/ Kari Hurtta

Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes &lt;alex(a)thehandofagony.com&gt; writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel: Now appdb.winehq.org seems not answer, but on that particular test there there was on Installs? -column NA (or something like that) and on Rating -column Platinum. / Kari Hurtta

>> Tony Lambregts

Kari Hurtta wrote: > "Dan Kegel" &lt;dank(a)kegel.com&gt; writes in gmane.comp.emulators.wine.devel: >

This App is definately not platinum. It does not "run flawlessly out of the box". I changed the maintainer rating to gold

Testing results are different from maintainer ratings although they use the same scale (in other words your results may vary)

-- Tony Lambregts