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

Rosanne DiMesio dimesio at earthlink.net
Thu May 17 07:11:20 CDT 2012

On Thu, 17 May 2012 09:56:17 +0200
Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.delanoy at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> patches.
> e.g. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=25953&iTestingId th=71519
They shouldn't have been accepted. There are lots of things in the AppDB that shouldn't be there.

> 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
People don't read the entries as it is, whatever the rating. I frequently have to point things out to users on the forum that are clearly stated in the AppDB entry that they claim to have read. And the rating system itself is deeply flawed: ratings depend as much on the user's skills and tolerance for problems as they do on the actual performance.  If it were up to me, we'd get rid of individual ratings, and just let users report the facts. 

I agree that what is most useful in the AppDB is the specific information on how to make an app work, and yes, patches do fall into that category. Them problem with accepting them is that then there is no valid reason for rejecting reports that use POL, WineSkin, etc. I'll repeat the question I asked Austin: is that the road you all want to go down? Because I could easily start accepting them right now, without any need for changes to the AppDB code.

Rosanne DiMesio <dimesio at earthlink.net>

More information about the wine-devel mailing list