Questions about using native vs implementing our own
paul.vriens.wine at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 10:10:18 CDT 2007
Tom Spear wrote:
> Hi again all, before I go and file another needless bug, I thought I
> would ask for opinions.
> I decided to try to run Process Explorer today with wine. When I
> first ran it, I got a dialog about missing a function. So I looked
> back thru the traces and it was because we were missing acledit.dll..
> So I imported that from my windows xp install, and got the dialog
> again. Turned out I was also missing netui0.dll, netui1.dll, and
> netui2.dll and those in turn needed netrap.dll and samlib.dll.
> Once I got all of those imported from XP, Process Explorer now runs
> I looked at the version information, and here is the description of each
> acledit is an access control list editor
> netui0 is NT LM UI Common Code - GUI Classes
> netui1 is NT LM UI Common Code - Networking classes
> netui2 is NT LM UI Common Code - GUI Classes
> netrap is Net Remote Admin Protocol DLL
> and samlib is SAM Library DLL
> I assume SAM is the Security Accounts Manager service, so that last
> dll would go for that and most likely would never be implemented with
> wine. But, how about the others? Is doing one of these something
> possibly feasible for a SoC project? I'm sure that there are other
> projects that use these dll's as well, but I dont know of them..
> My biggest question is when is it appropriate for us to build our own
> DLL's vs just saying to use native?
> I would personally like to at least see the NTLM stuff get built since
> I know one of the developers is working on NTLM right now
> Also, should I file a bug for Process Explorer needing native dll's,
> or should I maybe file a bug to build our own versions of these dll's,
> OR should I just leave it alone altogether?
> I am creating an AppDB page for the program now. Does anyone object
> to me putting notes about which native dll's are needed on that page?
please have a look at:
More information about the wine-devel