wine users - Jan 2009 - Clarification of ratings...

I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or better.

The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require recompiling Wine
with patches to get them to work.  From my understanding, any application that
requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a patch/bug to be
able to operate.  That and any application that ranks higher should run under a
default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL override, audio
selection, etc.)

Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app
Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <wineforum-user at winehq.org>
wrote:
> I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or
better.
>
> The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require recompiling
Wine with patches to get them to work.  From my understanding, any application
that requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a patch/bug
to be able to operate.  That and any application that ranks higher should run
under a default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL override,
audio selection, etc.)
>
> Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app
Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?
>
>
>
>
>
>
There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The problem is
that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
administrators, they can slip by.

And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it should
not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
_without_ recompiling.

-- 
-Austin

austin987 wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <wineforum-user at
winehq.org> wrote:
> 
> > I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine as Gold or
better.
> > 
> > The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that require
recompiling Wine with patches to get them to work.  From my understanding, any
application that requires code changes should be listed as garbage and tied to a
patch/bug to be able to operate.  That and any application that ranks higher
should run under a default build of Wine with minor configuration changes (DLL
override, audio selection, etc.)
> > 
> > Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an app
Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base code?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The problem is
> that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
> administrators, they can slip by.
> 
> And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it should
> not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
> _without_ recompiling.
> 
> -- 
> -Austin

I still disagree, I'll accept something as Gold if it requires any
modification of Wine if all information is available to get that rating.

It's not really any different from using native dlls, you're
substituting parts of mainline Wine with other code.

austin987 wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, jeffz <wineforum-user at winehq.org>
wrote:
> 
> > 
> > austin987 wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <wineforum-user at
winehq.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > I was browsing apps and looking for games that run in Wine
as Gold or better.
> > > > 
> > > > The issue is that I see many apps listed as gold that
require recompiling Wine with patches to get them to work.  From my
understanding, any application that requires code changes should be listed as
garbage and tied to a patch/bug to be able to operate.  That and any application
that ranks higher should run under a default build of Wine with minor
configuration changes (DLL override, audio selection, etc.)
> > > > 
> > > > Is it proper/(fair to Wine and it's image) to call an
app Platinum/Gold/Silver if you have to recompile it after changing the base
code?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > There was a discussion on this on wine-devel recently. The
problem is
> > > that users decide the rating, and although they're checked by
> > > administrators, they can slip by.
> > > 
> > > And to answer your question, no. If patches are required, it
should
> > > not be gold, etc. All ratings should be based on what you can do
> > > _without_ recompiling.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > -Austin
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I still disagree, I'll accept something as Gold if it requires any
modification of Wine if all information is available to get that rating.
> > 
> > It's not really any different from using native dlls, you're
substituting parts of mainline Wine with other code.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Similar, yes, but patches are outside the scope of most users. Native
> dlls are easy to do, and don't have to be readjusted for each release
> of wine.
> 
> -- 
> -Austin

By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who do are
not licensed to use them.

> By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of users who
do are not licensed to use them.


I have to agree with Austin.  The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning
non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch Wine,
but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.

> It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness.  So long
as a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the effort
they can patch and build from source.


The key words here are "expend the effort." Patching and building Wine
from source is a lot more work than than normal users are willing to expend, and
I don't think that attitude is unreasonable.

I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
app running under wine ...

Ludo

-----Original Message-----
From: wine-users-bounces at winehq.org
[mailto:wine-users-bounces at winehq.org] On Behalf Of Austin English
Sent: January 12, 2009 12:17 AM
To: wine-users at winehq.org
Subject: Re: [Wine] Clarification of ratings...

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <wineforum-user at winehq.org>
wrote:
>
> dimesio wrote:
>>
>> > By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope of
users who do are not licensed to use them.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have to agree with Austin.  The AppDB is aimed at ordinary (meaning
non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch
Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.
>
>
> It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness.  So long
as
a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
effort they can patch and build from source.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source code,
filling up your machine with development packages so you can compile,
etc.

This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users to
rate apps by our standard.

--
-Austin

Derek McGowan wrote:
> I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
> asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
> appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
> (link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
> well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
> This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
> rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
> app running under wine ...
> 

I think you're right; that's really the only way to make ratings
consistent. The problem is that that would require a complete overhaul of the
AppDB, and a complete overhaul would depend on someone with the required skills
deciding to do it. My general impression is that the AppDB is at the bottom of
the priority list for most developers (if it's even on their list at all).

Derek McGowan <DMcGowan at deniment.on.ca> wrote:
Please bottom post on this list.
>Austin English wrote:
>
>On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <wineforum-user at winehq.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> dimesio wrote:
>>>
>>> > By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope
of
>users who do are not licensed to use them.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Austin.  The AppDB is aimed at ordinary
(meaning
>non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to patch
>Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.
>>
>>
>> It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness.  So
long as
>a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the
>effort they can patch and build from source.
>>
>
>Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source code,
>filling up your machine with development packages so you can compile,
>etc.
>
>This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users to
>rate apps by our standard.
>
> I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves
>asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the
>appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required
>(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required (as
>well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a scale.
>This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a
>rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get an
>app running under wine ...
>
Are you willing to undertake this work?  Since most of the web site is
constructed by volunteers, here is your opportunity to contribute.

I do agree that this needs to be addressed.  The 'average' nOOb would
not attempt to compile Wine, but would be willing to install Windows based
dynamically linked library (dll) files if they were obtained from a legal site
(this definition varies based upon where the user is located.)

James McKenzie

-----Original Message-----
From: James Mckenzie [mailto:jjmckenzie51 at earthlink.net] 
Sent: January 12, 2009 12:17 PM
To: Derek McGowan; wine-users at winehq.org
Subject: Re: [Wine] Clarification of ratings...

Derek McGowan <DMcGowan at deniment.on.ca> wrote:
Please bottom post on this list.
>Austin English wrote:
>
>On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM, jeffz <wineforum-user at winehq.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> dimesio wrote:
>>>
>>> > By the same reasoning, some native dlls are out of the scope
of
>users who do are not licensed to use them.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Austin.  The AppDB is aimed at ordinary 
>>> (meaning
>non-technical) users. Most of these users do not have the skill to 
>patch Wine, but most do have easy access to Windows dlls.
>>
>>
>> It's not a matter of skill, it's a matter of willingness.  So
long as
>a user is apt in reading comprehension and they want to expend the 
>effort they can patch and build from source.
>>
>
>Which also requires finding out how to compile, getting the source 
>code, filling up your machine with development packages so you can 
>compile, etc.
>
>This argument is moot anyway, as there's no way for us to force users 
>to rate apps by our standard.
>
> I think there is a way to create a standard rating ... It involves 
>asking more specific questions when entering or updating an app in the 
>appdb, and making them required - like were non standard dlls required 
>(link must be provided), or was a non standard make of wine required 
>(as well as maybe a few others), and scoring these responses on a
scale.
>This could potentially provide users (experienced, and new) with a 
>rating giving us a fairly good idea of how difficult it may be to get 
>an app running under wine ...
>
>Are you willing to undertake this work?  Since most of the web site is
constructed by volunteers, here is >your opportunity to contribute. 
>
>I do agree that this needs to be addressed.  The 'average' nOOb
would
not attempt to compile Wine, but >would be willing to install Windows
based dynamically linked library (dll) files if they were obtained
from
>a legal site (this definition varies based upon where the user is
located.)
>
>James McKenzie
Sorry about the top posting ... Will try to remember to bottom post here
form now on ...

   I may shortly end up having to hire a DB programmer, that may have
some spare time ... I could alocate some of his time to the AppDB ...

   Could someone please provide me with a little more info about it ...
Like backend, front end, size etc ...

   I'm not positive I'll be able to help, but I'm certainly willing
to
look into and consider it ...

Derek McGowan