[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: binary packages

From: Paul Kienzle
Subject: Re: binary packages
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:51:46 -0500

On Feb 16, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Andy Adler wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Paul Kienzle wrote:

 | Windows 98, 2000, XP:
 |      Two approaches here:  one is a cygwin package approach,
 |      the other a separately installed binary.   My own preference
 |      is for a separately installed binary which can optionally
 |      install into an existing cygwin environment.

 For a separately installed binary package, the key feature is that it
 play nice with existing Cygwin installations.  I would prefer to not
 see any more angry messages from people who blame Octave for screwing
 up their Cywgin installation...


I have never (recently) had an interest in win9x, but I recall that we
had a problem with dynamic linking on these systems. Because of that
there was some interest in maintaining a static only build of

What is the status of this? If its no longer a problem, then it
simplifies octave packaging considerably.

The problem was that it would report an error message
for every loaded DLL every time it forked.  The solution
was to drop the fork-exec model and use the winapi
functions directly.  I believe the new octave will work
directly, but it has been a while since I rebuilt it.

Paul Kienzle

Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:
How to fund new projects:
Subscription information:

reply via email to

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