On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Rosanne DiMesio <dime...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:16:11 -0700 > Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com> wrote: > >> >> Really? IMHO they should still be silver. Patches are very hard for the >> average user to deploy without a third party front end like POL, >> and appdb is not about POL. >> > AppDB test reports are supposed to reflect the performance of the Wine > release tested. Strictly speaking, we shouldn't allow any workarounds at all, > but we'd have to throw out most of the accumulated data if we made that > change. IMO, a reasonable compromise draws the line at what an ordinary, > non-technical user can reasonably be expected to know how to do. Copying > files, even whole directories, is something everyone can be expected to know. > Patching and compiling Wine isn't.
In my understanding, Gold is about an application working flawlessly if some workaround/setting is used. IMHO a patched wine can be seen as a workaround, albeit harder to apply. If the patch(es) is(are) sufficiently popular, somebody may create a PPA for less savvy users. If this patch isn't accepted, I wonder why some entries like those for Diablo III were accepted, since some indicate you need to apply some patches. e.g. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=25953&iTestingId=71519 Also, if patched wine isn't accepted in AppDb ratings, the app entry would likely be marked as Garbage, and most people won't bother to read the specific entries, while a workaround (patches) can be used. Reading AppDB HOWTO entries seems counterintuitive for Garbage-rated apps, IMHO Frédéric
