Open madoar opened 5 years ago
Theoritically, yes we can. However, it's starting to be a little weird to call it wine, isn't it?
Yes, but do we want to limit this tool only to wine? The issue why I'm asking: I have a dos application for which I would like to write a Phoenicis script, the issue is that I need dosbox. Therefore it would be nice if we could also build DosBox. In addition I think it would make for a nice second type of engine for Phoenicis.
You are correct. Concerning your dos application, you have two possibilities: 1 - use a dos support wine build until we support another solution 2 - create a new engine
What exactly do you mean by 2? When providing a new engine for Phoenicis we need to do two tasks:
I think I'm able to do task two (I never implemented an engine implementation for Phoenicis before), but I don't think I can do task one.
I can provide the task one, no problem
I was just saying that concerning your app, you may want to simply use wine dosbox_support
Yes I can do that for now.
The issue with using wine_dosbox_support
in my case is, that it comes with all the wine
"overhead" that isn't required.
Therefore I would prefer a dosbox engine without wine longterm.
You could already create the DOS engine and use wine_dosbox_support
. Then, later on, you only switch the source. I'm pretty sure you will find some places in Phoenicis which must be changed (e.g. container info page).
@plata do you know if our engines tab would work with multiple kinds of engines, or would it throw some exception if we provide multiple engine types?
In theory it should simply show multiple categories but I don't know if that's really working.
@qparis is it possible to build only DosBox (without wine) using winebuild?