2010/4/12 Nicolas Le Cam <[email protected]>: > Le 12 avril 2010 11:02, Frédéric Delanoy <[email protected]> a écrit > : >> 2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam <[email protected]>: >>> Le 9 avril 2010 13:30, Frédéric Delanoy <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>>> 2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam <[email protected]>: >>>>> Hi Frédéric, >>>>> >>>>>>+processus clients se sont terminés. Ceci évite le coût inhérent à l'arrêt >>>>> sont -> soient >>>>> >>>>>>+\fIwineserver\fR dans le chemin système ou quelques autres emplacements >>>>>>vraisemblables. >>>>> "potentiels" or "possibles" suit better. >>>>> >>>> >>>> My understanding was that it looked first in the system path, then >>>> tried in, e.g., the home dir or other >>>> directories. >>>> I guess it looks in a hardcoded list of dirs, or sthg like that. In >>>> that sense, "possibles" does not fit IMO. >>>> "potentiels" or "vraisemblables" could both fit, but I wanted to >>>> insist on the probability for the command >>>> to be there (sthg like P[potentiels] < P[vraisemblables]). >>>> >>>> Frédéric >>>> >>> It tries PATH and BINDIR (and server/wineserver if in a build >>> directory). See >>> http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=blob;f=libs/wine/config.c#l480 >>> So 'potentiels' or 'possibles' fit better IMHO. >> >> "Probables" may possibly fit even better (altough "potentiels" should be OK)? >> >> Frédéric >> > IMHO, "Probables" or "Vraisemblables" mean that it tries randomly some > paths and isn't at all certain to succeed, IOW it sounds really weak ; > where "Potentiels" or "Possibles" mean that if wineserver can't be > found in a fixed number of (logically computed) places, you need to > fix your system because you have a problem. I really prefer the second > option.
OK for "potentiels" in that case (although "probables" seems stronger than "possibles" IMHO) Frédéric
