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

Frédéric Delanoy frederic.delanoy at gmail.com
Thu May 17 02:56:17 CDT 2012

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio at earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:16:11 -0700
> Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com> 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.
> AppDB test reports are supposed to reflect the performance of the Wine release tested. Strictly speaking, we shouldn't allow any workarounds at all, but we'd have to throw out most of the accumulated data if we made that change. IMO, a reasonable compromise draws the line at what an ordinary, non-technical user can reasonably be expected to know how to do. Copying files, even whole directories, is something everyone can be expected to know. Patching and compiling Wine isn't.

In my understanding, Gold is about an application working flawlessly
if some workaround/setting is used.
IMHO a patched wine can be seen as a workaround, albeit harder to
apply. If the patch(es) is(are) sufficiently popular, somebody may
create a PPA for less savvy users.

If this patch isn't accepted, I wonder why some entries like those for
Diablo III were accepted, since some indicate you need to apply some
e.g. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=25953&iTestingId=71519

Also, if patched wine isn't accepted in AppDb ratings, the app entry
would likely be marked as Garbage, and most people won't bother to
read the specific entries, while a workaround (patches) can be used.
Reading AppDB HOWTO entries seems counterintuitive for Garbage-rated
apps, IMHO


More information about the wine-devel mailing list