Wine 0.9 progress
mike at theoretic.com
Mon Aug 25 16:06:11 CDT 2003
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 18:51, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> As we discussed during the IRC session, this is not a blocker.
> Essentially I need to get back to it and resubmit some patches
> that have fallen off Jeremy's radar.
OK, that sounds good.
> Yes, this one is a bugger. Mark, what is that status on those
> patches? If you have anything, it's better to send them in so
> others can pick up where you guys left off.
I just prodded Mark on MSN. I'm looking over the code now, and have a
few questions about how to proceed. The primary issue is that we can't
have the same setting pulled both from the config file and the registry,
can we? So, as winecfg gradually gets more functional, parts of the
config file will stop being referenced in favour of reg entries set via
winecfg, but not all parts of winecfg will actually do anything. So:
1) How do we stop users being confused because they updated and now
their config file doesn't seem to work anymore?
2) How do we stop users being confused because they started winecfg but
the changes they make don't always take effect?
* Warnings on startup if a part of the config file exists. IE if we move
version settings into the registry, output err: lines if those keys are
in the config file to get the user to remove them.
* Disabling any controls that don't do anything in the winecfg program,
so the user can't edit them.
> This is critical, IIRC. John just submitted some more patches, but
> I have no idea how much work there's left. John, can you give us a
> status update on the DLLs self register task?
Why is it critical?
> IIRC, Alexandre also wanted InstallShield to work properly for 0.9.
That's good to hear.
More information about the wine-devel