Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wine"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Clarification: Remove closed topic.)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
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)
 
==<s>Clarification</s>==
 
 
"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)
 
 
:What is there to clarify? It looks like you understood things right. People on i686 who just type "wine program-name" will get the same behavior as people on x86_64 that use WINEARCH=win32 "wine program-name". --[[User:Svenstaro|Svenstaro]] 23:47, 2 March 2012 (EST)
 
 
::Reworded, I hope it's clearer now. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 08:12, 4 March 2012 (EST)
 

Revision as of 02:27, 18 July 2012

Poor writing

Throughout the article, I see: a lack of grammar, repetitive or overly verbose statements, and overuse of the [note] tag. Anyone else want to correct this? T1nk3r3r (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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)