22 Jun
2006
22 Jun
'06
9:02 p.m.
I just looked, and there aren't *that* many msi and ole bugs
reported in bugzilla.
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-ole&…
lists 37 ole bugs with downloadable demos
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-ole&…
lists 89 ole bugs total
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-msi&…
lists 35 msi bugs with downloadable demos
http://bugs.winehq.org/buglist.cgi?product=Wine&component=wine-msi&…
lists 71 msi bugs total
Would it be unreasonable to set a goal of having
all msi and ole bugs fixed for wine-1.0 ?
22 Jun
22 Jun
9:17 p.m.
On 6/22/06, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
I just looked, and there aren't *that* many msi
and ole bugs
reported in bugzilla.
Would it be unreasonable to set a goal of having
all msi and ole bugs fixed for wine-1.0 ?
Just to clarify that last statement, you mean all reported msi and ole bugs?
My opinion is that this is a reasonable goal for 1.0, and a necessary
goal at that. When we say, "1.0 is out!" new users should at least be
able to try their software in wine, which requires the installers to
work. At this point, at least with msi, fixing the bugs isn't
requiring major infrastructure change, just changing the behavior of a
certain feature (in most cases).
--
James Hawkins
4 Jul
4 Jul
2:09 a.m.
On 6/22/06, James Hawkins <truiken(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/22/06, Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote:
Yep. Can't fix the unreported ones...
I just looked, and there aren't *that* many
msi and ole bugs
reported in bugzilla.
Would it be unreasonable to set a goal of having
all msi and ole bugs fixed for wine-1.0 ?
Just to clarify that last statement, you mean all reported msi and ole bugs? My opinion is that this is a reasonable goal for 1.0,
and a necessary
goal at that. When we say, "1.0 is out!" new users should at least be
able to try their software in wine, which requires the installers to
work. At this point, at least with msi, fixing the bugs isn't
requiring major infrastructure change, just changing the behavior of a
certain feature (in most cases).
Well, it turns out that fixing all reported install bugs at the moment
does require some interesting work:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4632 requires msi to support sql joins
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5322 needs a performance registry entry
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5540 requires the msi service!
So perhaps some of those could be postponed to after 1.0.
But the rest -- the "easy" ones (hah) -- we ought to do.
In particular, it'd be great to support widely-used apps like Lotus Notes,
whose installer we can't handle well at all right now:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5595
All in favor of getting the Lotus Notes 6.5.x installer working for Wine 1.0,
raise your hands...
- Dan
25 Jun
25 Jun
2:26 a.m.
On 6/24/06, Ivan Leo Puoti <ivanleo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are you implying 1.0 should be released with any known
bugs at all? I thought only M$ did that sort
of stuff.
I've never heard of any open source project waiting for all known
bugs
to be closed before going out of beta. There's always something more
to be improved or fixed. 1.0 doesn't mean "perfect"; as I understand
it, it means "good enough for normal people to use". That means not
having lots of regressions all the time, and not needing extensive
configuration before it will run anything properly.
But then I'm not really a developer.
--
Vincent Povirk
6527
days inactive
6539
days old
4 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dan Kegel -
Ivan Leo Puoti -
James Hawkins -
Vincent Povirk