[appdb] Applications working flawlessly using patched wine should be rated Gold

Dan Kegel 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
> point.
> 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
very confusing.
Maybe if it forced the rating to be garbage that would be ok.

More information about the wine-devel mailing list