On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, jeffz <wineforum-user@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > austin987 wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:28 AM, Nick_S <wineforum-user@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
