[msi OLE automation] Re: msi patches info pls

[Misha Koshelev]

On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 17:27 +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Sorry for the lack of response, I'm currently waiting for our lawyers
> to determine if it's ok to use code based on an oleview dump of a
> native typelib, as that situation is not clear from a copyright
> POV. I'm afraid I can't do more until they come to a conclusion on
> that point.
> 

So it looks like I will have some free time soon (hopefully) and will be
able to redo the "IDL" file properly (also another Vector NTI/Linux user
has offered up his help). However, I wanted to double check the "proper"
way to make such a file as I know this is what is important in copyright
(the process, such as dirty-clean room, vs the actual end result). From
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2007-March/054589.html
(posted by Rob Shearman) this is what I understand the correct process
to be (I would like to understand the process in detail so I don't do
something wrong to "taint" the wine copyright):

As one is looking at the oleview output of the native IDL file, one
starts a blank document and begins to make the wine IDL file. One
defines all the appropriate interfaces, etc. using the UUID's, names,
etc. from the native interface. All the function names and parameter
types are declared the same, as well as function attributes, but I
should use different names for the parameters and try to put the
attributes in a different order (although if I understand correctly the
order of these attributes comes from our oleview implementation and not
from the interface per se so there shouldn't be any reason to change
their order??). 

Also, what does one do for enums? It does not seem like there is
anything that can be changed in this case, so it is alright just to
re-create them verbatim (without copying and pasting, and of course the
indentation will be prettier)?

Thank you very much for your help.

Misha