On 9/27/05, Dan Kegel <daniel.r.kegel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9/26/05, Mark Knecht <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I guess it's stating the obvious, but just using the standard Wine > > install I tried both Quicken 2005 and Office 2000 today. Neither > > installed. > > Hmm. I would have agreed, but Mike Mccormack is > looking for examples of installers that fail, > and says he'll fix them. Are you using wine from cvs? > That should be in the best shape. I am using Wine from portage - wine-20050830 - more or less as per your original call for action, at least as I read it. > > > Is there any stated policy about things like Winetools? What should > > we expect Wine to handle and when should we resort to using things > > outside of Wine? > > When it comes to QA of Wine, I think one should > not use Winetools. We want to test pure wine, > not wine plus a bunch of microsoft DLLs. > - Dan > My thought also. No winetools for now, not that it isn't great. It may even be necessary but at least we should try Wine by itself before we start adding other things in. Also, to keep this as clean as possible I'm doing an rm -rf .wine after each attempted install. I do not want, for instance, a Quicken install, good or bad, to leave something behind that another app is depending on, good or bad. Wine should be able to install a Windows app and make it run. If it cannot then we need to understand why and find a way to install helper things if necessary. At least that's my view, and what I think winetools has been doing for us. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
