Hi list,
on my way on comparing wine with reactos I found several differences
which were cleanups in wine. Attached is a patch to merge over theses
changes.
Regards,
Christoph Brill
Hi list,
I tried to sync shdocvw today. Our version is quite different from what
I found in wine. Both seem to have started from a similar point but both
got some development done. I'm not sure I'm doing anything correct here,
but to outline my changes (and later on the issues):
- Import the new "class hierarchie"
(ConnectionPointContainer->DocHost->WebBrowser)
- stuff like IPersistMemory, IOleCommandTarget, IHlinkFrame, IDispatch,
IServiceProvider
- URL-History and Navigation (Forward, Backward)
Issues:
- I commented out regsvr.c because factory.c had similar functions. I'm
not sure which one is better, but whichever we choose it should be put
in regserv.c and merged back to wine.
- DllGetClassObject in shdocvw_main.c commented out in favour of
factory.c. Same as above.
- I removed "extern const GUID CLSID_InternetShortcut;" from
include/psdk/isguids.h. We needed CLSID_InternetShortcut to be static
in factory.c.
You see: factory.c causes me a major headache. I'll see if I can fix
these issues but I really like one with knowledge(!) to look over the
patches and at least tell me: Hey, what you are doing is (more or less)
right/wrong. Feedback please!
Thanks,
Christoph Brill
Hi list,
attached is a patch to update msvcrt20 against wine. It changes:
- use the .spec file from wine to generate the .def
- Add some CDECL's
That's it,
Christoph Brill
Hi list,
attached is a patch that updates our msiexec from the wine sources. From
what I can tell it has 2 major changes:
- option handling is now much more sane (no "if (!xyz)" but "if (xyz)")
- addition of argument "/regserver"
I also added the icon from wine for msiexec. Not sure if it's ok. Tell
me if I should create another (if someone tells me how the icon should
look like I would do a better one).
Regards,
Christoph Brill
I would like to ask if usrmgr is open for translation. As Eric Kohl left the
following message inside en-US.rc:
* Attention Translators:
* DO NOT TRANSLATE THESE RESOURCES YET!
it should be quite evident, its not ready yet.
Alas, a russian translation exists, commited by Fireball himself.
Regards
Olaf Siejka aka Caemyr aka Haos
I get an error while trying to install Firefox 2.0 on a bootcd
compilation, finally i found the possibly bug is in vfatfs.sys i
modified some lines but is not my code.....it seems to install Firefox.
Also, testing firefox i found problems with gdi and also done some
modifications, still testing them..
Here is my patch..NO WARRANTY he he..
Basically, Oriol just uncommented your #if0-ed code, and substituted
SEH-wrapped pointer operation with a worse "if not null" check. And
that's filtering a number of unrelated debug-messages hacks.
But, Oriol, you're giving good signs you're improving! :-) The VFAT
problem of not clearing the delete pending flag is a good thing
(Christoph discovered that, however there are still problems if you
clear the flag).
With the best regards,
Aleksey Bragin.
On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:46 AM, James Tabor wrote:
> Hi,
> I can only write about the gdi code changes.
>
> 1st dll/win32/gdi32/misc/misc.c looks good!
> 2nd the dc.c changes,,, ATM the support code for dirty bit sets is not
> inplace, but the patch is good.
>
> I will apply your patch ASAP for the GDI changes, it does look good.
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 3:41 PM, Oriol <oripipa(a)yahoo.es> wrote:
>> I get an error while trying to install Firefox 2.0 on a bootcd
>> compilation, finally i found the possibly bug is in vfatfs.sys i
>> modified some lines but is not my code.....it seems to install
>> Firefox.
>> Also, testing firefox i found problems with gdi and also done some
>> modifications, still testing them..
>> Here is my patch..NO WARRANTY he he..
Hi Oriol,
now you can send the vfatfs.sys patch ;)
Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle (aka Usurp)
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire.I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - VoltaireRun your favorite Windows apps with free ReactOS : http://www.reactos.orgListen to non-DRMised Music: http://www.jamendo.com
----- Message d'origine ----
De : Oriol <oripipa(a)yahoo.es>
À : ros-dev(a)reactos.org
Envoyé le : Jeudi, 3 Janvier 2008, 22h41mn 57s
Objet : [ros-dev] bug in vfatfs.sys?
I get an error while trying to install Firefox 2.0 on a bootcd
compilation, finally i found the possibly bug is in vfatfs.sys i
modified some lines but is not my code.....it seems to install Firefox.
Also, testing firefox i found problems with gdi and also done some
modifications, still testing them..
Here is my patch..NO WARRANTY he he..
Can you fill the headers out correctly please?
See any other the other reactos sources as to how this is done.
There's also a wiki page detailing this.
Thanks,
Ged.
+/*
+ * ReactOS kernel
+ * Copyright (C) 2003 ReactOS Team
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+ * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+ * (at your option) any later version.
+ *
+ * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ *
+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+ * Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
+ */
+/* $Id: registry.h 21704 2006-04-22 13:55:01Z tretiakov $
+ * COPYRIGHT: See COPYING in the top level directory
+ * PROJECT: ReactOS text-mode setup
+ * FILE: subsys/system/usetup/errcode.h
+ * PURPOSE:
+ * PROGRAMMER:
+ */
oripipa wrote:
>IS this correct? interpreting a shared cursos should never be
destroyed?
No. But then shared resources are not yet implemented (at least wasn't
last I checked) why this code wasn't too incorrect. Your change most
certainly is not right, as it'd make the code never remove anything
from the list.
Current code removes the process-owned icons (from the list) when the
process terminates. Is this case really properly locked? I don't know.
More research is needed for shared resources.
--
Mike
