[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Win32 builds - new set of DLL

From: Nardy Pillards
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Win32 builds - new set of DLL
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:33:24 +0200

From: "Øystein Johansen" <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:40 AM

> > For compiling gnubg personally, of course I'm able to pay attention to
> > the paths and will use "libiconv-1.9.bin.woe32.zip".
> Yes, agreed! I just couldn't figure out the difference at first.

The iconv.dll version included in Installation Archive is the one from
That isn't a problem though, the only difference between iconv.dll of
libiconv-1.9.bin.woe32.zip and iconv.dll of
libiconv-1.9-w32.2.bin.woe32.zip: they inserted the version number (1.9.0)
into the DLL.

The next builds uploaded by me, will be compiled/linked with the packages
you agreed with.

I intend to also upload a 'update' package.
This package will contain the new DLLs (and eventually delete the existing
ones. but have to test it more deeply before adding that feature).
If you think that is a bad idea, let me know?

And (repeating my question of a previous post):

Is it allowed to upload the packages needed to build gnubg to www.gnubg.org?
Not asking if we are allowed to use diskspace on gnubg.org (although that
could be reason not doing it).
But asking: are there somehow copyrights on those packages, making it
illegal to copy them to gnubg.org?

And the reason to upload:
That way the current used packages to build gnubg would be available to
anyone, until Øystein / Holger decide to use a new set.
(and I could upload the zlib package with zlib.dll (as copy of zlib-1.dll),
and libiconv-1.9-w32.2.bin.woe32.zip with a 'normal' directory structure).

Bad idea?


reply via email to

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