Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wine"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Removing old stuff)
(Clarification: new section)
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
Yup, feel free to add that note. --[[User:Svenstaro|Svenstaro]] 12:24, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 
Yup, feel free to add that note. --[[User:Svenstaro|Svenstaro]] 12:24, 20 January 2012 (EST)
 +
 +
== Clarification ==
 +
 +
"To clarify the above, the i686 package Wine will work exactly like a x86_64 package Wine with a win32 WINEPREFIX with no ill effects."
 +
 +
This confused me omre than clarified anything. My suspicion - if i had any - would be that 64 bit system posing as a 32 bit system might be problematic. But this sentence seems to 'reassure' readers that things will work -- even if you're not using the elaborate method mentioned above. Huh? Clarification, please...
 +
--[[User:Madchine|Madchine]] 20:42, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Revision as of 01:42, 3 March 2012

WINEARCH=win32

Wine seems to treat empty folders as win64 prefix folders, making it confusing to create win32 prefixes in empty folders. It gives the error [wine: WINEARCH set to win32 but '/home/wine/photoshop' is a 64-bit installation]. Perhaps we should add a note about this? See this bugreport http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29661 -- JKAbrams 14:35, 20 Jan 2012 (EDT)

Yup, feel free to add that note. --Svenstaro 12:24, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Clarification

"To clarify the above, the i686 package Wine will work exactly like a x86_64 package Wine with a win32 WINEPREFIX with no ill effects."

This confused me omre than clarified anything. My suspicion - if i had any - would be that 64 bit system posing as a 32 bit system might be problematic. But this sentence seems to 'reassure' readers that things will work -- even if you're not using the elaborate method mentioned above. Huh? Clarification, please... --Madchine 20:42, 2 March 2012 (EST)