juan.lang at gmail.com
Wed Aug 12 15:22:24 CDT 2009
> What I am wondering about is that there is still a lot of code in these
> files we have no interest in. The file reader and http reader and other
> things that we do not use (it is accessed just by the direct stream methods)
> and those things dependencies.
> Should I leave all this code present in our version of the modules and
> mostly preserve the libmpg123 work to make it easier to keep updating
> forward? Or should i remove all the unneeded code so that the modules
> present in winehq are leaner and more targeted to just the things the wine
> needs, but then they deviate much more from the original libmpg123 source?
Personally, I don't see the point in adding files to the build that
aren't used. So if an entire file isn't referenced from Wine, I
wouldn't add it in the first place.
If there's a file that is used in Wine, but that has code that isn't
used, you might add it unmodified as one patch, and remove the unused
code in another. The purpose for adding it unmodified is to make it
easier to diff with the upstream version.
Another approach would be to add the unmodified code, then disable the
unused code using comments or #if 0. This could be useful if we were
trying to apply patches to upstream to our own codebase. It seems as
though we update from upstream sources rather seldom, though, so I
don't think this is worth the ugliness of dead code being left in the
A final complication is when one file, which is used, contains
references to files that aren't used. In this case I'd say add the
file with the references removed, and hopefully the deletions would be
clear in the diff from upstream.
This is all my opinion of course. What were you thinking?
> With what I have now the mp3 source material this game i am testing is using
> sounds much much better. So it should be a great improvement.
Well done :)
More information about the wine-devel