Solaris compile time fixes for CVS wine

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Robert Lunnon wrote:

> It would be relatively easy to send a dozen or so emails though, providing you 
> don't want me to collect up the dependencies into a single e-mail

Well, a patch should be a logical atomic change, no matter how many files
it touches. You can't for example have one patch use a new variable (say
in a file.c), and another declare it (in header.h).

> As for status:
> 
> Wine works quite well under Solaris x86  (Possibly better than linux based on 
> my experience with 18062003) but can't be built and run successfully without 
> two key patches that Alexandre has elected not to accept, and one patch which 
> is probably acceptable but I haven't sent yet (not sure if the semantics of 
> the code are correct for the OS yet). 

The reason I'm interested in the status is that I'm trying to assemble a
porting page for Wine. But that page has to refer to the stock Wine. Can
you please tell me which DLLs don't build cleanly in the stock tree on
Solaris?

Do you have any experience building Wine on Sparc?

> Hence my port is not a stock wine. I must maintain at least the critical 
> patches locally to be able to offer wine under solaris. As per the (L)GPL the 
> patches are all offered to the project and the diffs are distributed as a 
> patch kit with the binary with a pointer to winehq for the rest of the 
> source.

Do you publish Solaris binaries regularly? If so, would you be interested
in pushing them on SourceForge, with the rest of the other binary builds?

> Does this answer your questions, oh and should I resubmit the patches or will 
> the kit do.

For the purposes of getting them in the standard tree, I think you need to
resubmit. I hope we can get the standard tree to build on Solaris soon.

-- 
Dimi.