[appdb] Applications working flawlessly using patched wine should be rated Gold
dank at kegel.com
Wed May 16 15:56:52 CDT 2012
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Alexey Loukianov <mooroon2 at mail.ru> wrote:
>> Really? IMHO they should still be silver. Patches are very hard for the
>> average user to deploy without a third party front end like POL, and appdb
>> is not about POL. - Dan
> I thinks that using silver won't be correct here either.
Yes, sorry, after I posted that, I realized that patches should
force it down to bronze or lower.
doesn't even allow patches at all at the moment.
> "Some patches" could
> be treated too widely - and I think that we really don't want someone to use
> patch that, say, changes most of the wineserver to be inproc, and then treat
> it as "some patches" and rate an app as "Golden" with it. And an argument that
> patching Wine isn't something that is easy for average user is also a valid
> IMO if we want to handle "patched Wine" case in AppDB is some sane manner it
> would be better just to add a separate flag for a testreport to indicate was
> the Wine used for testing "vanilla" or not - it would make more sense for
> users and would allow to display test results acquired with a patched Wine in
> a visually distinguishable way from reports acquired with vanilla Wine. Thus,
> non-experienced users would be mostly checking results and ratings poster for
> non-patched Wine, while geeks would be doing their geekish business that they
> had always been doing.
A "runs well with patched wine" checkbox might be useful, but would be
Maybe if it forced the rating to be garbage that would be ok.
More information about the wine-devel