[wine-devel] Wine staging 4.21 release

Alan W. Irwin Alan.W.Irwin1234 at gmail.com
Wed Dec 4 16:09:05 CST 2019

On 2019-11-30 04:56-0000 Alistair Leslie-Hughes wrote:

> Binary packages for various distributions will be available from:
> https://www.winehq.org/download
> Summary since last release
> * Rebased to current wine 4.21 (833 patches are applied to wine vanilla)
> Upstreamed (Either directly from staging or fixed with a similar patch).
> * none
> Added:
> * [47668] kernelbase: Improve stub for ReOpenFile and add small test
> * [48138] League of Legends 9.23: Crash after champ select
> * [47970] Legends of Runeterra crashes at launch
> * [40334] AION - Wine /Unhandled exception: page fault on read access to
> 0x00000000 in 64-bit code (0x0000000000000000).
> * [48175] AION (64 bit) - crashes in crysystem.dll.CryFree() due to high
> memory pointers allocated
> * [46568] 64-bit msxml6.dll from Microsoft Core XML Services 6.0 redist
> package fails to load (Wine doesn't respect 44-bit user-mode VA
> limitation from Windows < 8.1)
> Updated:
> * d3d9-Direct3DShaderValidatorCreate9
> * winecfg-Staging
> Where can you help
> * Run Steam/Battle.net/GOG/UPlay/Epic
> * Test your favorite game.
> * Test your favorite applications.
> * Improve staging patches and get them accepted upstream.
> As always, if you find a bug, please report it via
> https://bugs.winehq.org

Hi Alistair:

Could you explain how these patch numbers are related with each other?
For example, my initial assumption was the rebased patch number should
be equal to the corresponding number in the last report plus the added
patches in this report less the upstreamed patches in this report, i.e.,

r = r_old + a - u

where r and r_old are the current and last reported rebased numbers and a and u
are the current added and upstreamed patch numbers.

But looking at the last several reports that formula predicts
incorrect results with the rebased patch number changing in what looks
like a completely arbitrary way from report to report compared to the
prediction.  So it appears the above formula is incorrect and/or

Could you let me know what the correct formula is for predicting the
rebased patch number from report to report (which helps to evaluate
the reliability of the staging patch number statistics that you
present), and if that formula depends on information (my guess is it
is the number of patches in staging that have just been deleted by the
staging maintainers because they judge those patches to not be
worthwhile) that you currently do not include in your reports, could
you include that important information in your following reports?

Alan W. Irwin

Programming affiliations with the FreeEOS equation-of-state
implementation for stellar interiors (freeeos.sf.net); the Time
Ephemerides project (timeephem.sf.net); PLplot scientific plotting
software package (plplot.org); the libLASi project
(unifont.org/lasi); the Loads of Linux Links project (loll.sf.net);
and the Linux Brochure Project (lbproject.sf.net).

Linux-powered Science

More information about the wine-devel mailing list