WINE porting templates

[Steven Edwards]

--- "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dpaun at rogers.com> wrote:
> Nice. Some suggestions:
> 
>   -- take out the "completed" bit, it's too verbose.
>   -- I'd add also the different headers to the table
>   -- would be nice to organize the table like so:
>
...+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> ...|        Compilers     |    Headers   |             OS           
> |  Architecture |
> ...| MSVC | MinGW | SunCC | MSVC | MinGW | NetBSD | FreeBSD |
> Solaris| Sparc | Alpha |

Can you send me a example in HTML of how you want to layout
Headers/OS/Compilers? I am having trouble getting it from looking at
the plain text.

> What's up with the 95%, why not 100%? :)

95% is with Wine Headers. I was trying to get a list of everything that
currently builds with the latest Mingw+MSYS and Wine headers. Once I am
done with that I was going to go back and try them with w32api headers
and then bump the number up to 100%. Same thing with MS_VC and the
PSDK. 95% if we can build the dll/program with WINE headers and 100% if
we can build it with both headers. I was planing on adding a key
describing this but I forgot. If you can send me that HTML file with
the table layout as you want it I will bump those numbers up to 100%.

> Also, I think we should merge the two pages together, it makes
> more sense. The information from porting.template should be
> tabulated, and stuck in the status_porting.template, at the
> begining. This way, you can have a clear and concise view of
> all that's going on, rather than having two disparate pages.

OK I will merge them. I just figured the status part with the tables
was a little big and it would be cleaner to split it up.

Thanks
Steven

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com