[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: bundled libs

From: Markus Schiltknecht
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: bundled libs
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:44:48 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird (X11/20080110)


Stephen Leake wrote:
The only thing close to native package management on Windows is the
Microsoft Windows Update service. It pushes security changes, and will
also push other changes if you let it. That is the _only_ user option.
It's designed for people like my mother-in-law, who barely understand
what a mouse does :).

Well, doesn't look like we'd have a chance of getting monotone distributed that way... :-(

But such people will be using mtn win32 binary installation, if they
use mtn at all. Developers should not mind some manual packaging, as
long as the instructions are clear, and it doesn't change very often.

Yeah, bundling the binary with necessary DLLs would be easy enough. It's rather the developers, wanting to build from source, who would probably also need to compile the dependencies. OTOH, we could simply tell them where to fetch the DLLs from.

Windows will keep DLLs separate if they are in separate directories.
So putting the DLLs for mtn in the same directory as mtn.exe should be

Sure, but that drives the concept of shared libraries ad absurbum. It's probably safer and simpler to provide a single static binary, in that case.

If we have sufficient resources (ie buildbots and developer time), it
is certainly the best for the widest set of users to have both known
good bundled packages, _and_ the ability to use the equivalent system
lib as well.

If we run out of testing/maintaining resources, I think dropping the
bundled libs (perhaps on a subset of the supported systems?) is better
than dropping the system libs, as long as there is a way to get the
needed libraries on all platforms.

Well, it's not like we already had support for system libraries... And after all this discussion, I think it's simplest to maintain both variants and use whichever is appropriate for the target OS.

As Zack already proposed, we should probably strive for including the external library as is - including calling the original configuration script it provides. So as to minimize the work needed to upgrade as well as being as close to the system libraries in the wild.

I'm not clear if this last paragraph is talking about bundling DLLs or

If we use the system libraries, we don't need the library's source, but need to provide a DLL (or tell people where to get those) for windows. So these two things are very related, IMO.

The current Windows mtn binary installer does bundle DLLs.

I didn't know. What DLLs does it need?



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]