defining and revamping our bugzilla categories

James Hawkins truiken at
Fri Oct 12 11:09:53 CDT 2007

On 10/12/07, Francois Gouget <fgouget at> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Steven Edwards wrote:
> [...]
> > > gdi
> > > printing
> [...]
> > Yes I second this motion. The components should be named as simply as
> > possible. Users are going to be the ones filing the reports and
> > whoever is doing triage is going to have to move it around if its in
> > the wrong area. Abstract names like DirectX, Sound, Graphics,
> > Installers and Printing are a much better idea than dllnames.
> [...]
> Sounds good to me too.
> But just for the sake of it, I will mention that we have keywords too.
> So we can have broad categories like 'printing' and 'display', and
> dll-specific keywords like 'gdi32' and 'comctl32'.
> Or we can do the opposite and have broad keywords for 'printing' and
> 'display', and then dll-specific categories.
> Or we could stay with the current scheme because both of the above may
> be abuses of the keyword system.
> Up to you.

Yea that works too.  I would actually prefer having them as keywords
and keeping components per dll.  It's been working great for the
installer keyword, where the components are usually, but not limited
to, msi, setupapi, advpack.

> One more issue to raise: is the reason why we have 'wine-' as the prefix
> to avoid conflicts between different products? That is, if we have a
> 'printing' category in the 'Wine' product, is it going to interfer with
> the 'printing' category of a 'Wine-doc' product?

You'd think bugzilla would be more dynamic.  For example, if you
choose as the product, then you only get components
available to that product.  Unfortunately, I don't think it works that

James Hawkins

More information about the wine-devel mailing list