Ulf Lamping wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
>> The official Windows installers are still built using Visual Studio 6.0.
>> I'd like to switch over to Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition before the
>> next release. Is there any reason not to do this?
>>
> Hi Gerald!
>
> I like the idea to switch to MSVC 2005 EE, e.g. this would make the
> config.nmake file consistent with the recommended compiler in the
> developer's guide.
>
> There seems to be repeating problems with the msvc runtime DLL
> msvcr80.dll, which doesn't appear when we use MSVC 6. As I don't have
> such problems and no good idea what the real cause of it is (maybe
> manifest files and/or compiler switch settings), I'm unsure if we will
> run into problems here.
>
> In addition, we'll need to pack the msvc redist package into the
> installer, which is obviously not open source - is there a problem with
> this? I guess not, as even the GPL addresses this as a operating system
> / compiler extension.
>
I'm not sure about this step for two reasons, licencing restrictions,
which we should check and installer bloat. Can we either provide a link
to the redistributables (on the MS site) or a version of the installer
without them. After all over time most machines will acquire them by
other means.
> If we do the "compiler update", do we want to put the redist exe into
> the Win32 libs dir on the subversion server, so it can be downloaded by
> the setup target?
>
See above, e.g. a link to the MS download.
>
> Regards, ULFL
>
> P.S: If I find some time, I'll try to include the manifest files into
> the dll and exe files (I read somewhere on the web that this is
> possible). I guess the seperate manifest files are at least one cause of
> the problems mentioned above. This will also make the handling in NSIS,
> U3, ... packaging easier.
>
I don't think it makes much difference. The loader will check for the
manifest in both places and the assemblies identified in the manifest
must be available.
--
Regards,
Graham Bloice