|
From: | Michael Goffioul |
Subject: | Re: Pre-compiled octave for Windows |
Date: | Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:22:32 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) |
David Bateman a écrit :
Michael Goffioul wrote:Scripts I don't care much about as they are small. But cruft.dll,octave.dll etc are rather large and so I don't see a reason to keep both about. I think you can dump one of each the three main dll. Also in the bin/ dir there is an octinterp.dll whereas there is a different one in the lib dir. One or the other should be distributed..
There is only one version of the DLL's, isn't it? Concerning octinterp.dll in bin/ dir and a different one in lib/ dir, I don't understand what you mean. The .lib and .dll files are coupled: the .lib file defines the symbols that are found in the .dll and is used at link time. So you need both of them (actually, the .lib files are only installed if you selected the "Development" package in the installer).
I'm not an expert license. All GnuWin32 packages are done in the same way, so I followed the same process. I'll see if I can remove the "I Accept" step.Its a quibble on my part in that I disagree with gnuwin32 also doing this, and it'll change user perspective of the GPL in that it is presented as a user license. The GPL only comes into play when you start trying to give the code to someone else...
Maybe it's simply due to NSIS, which forces you to explicitely accept the license
when you define one in the NSI script (I didn't check yet). What is better:not showing any license page at installation, or showing a license when an accept button,
even it doesn't really make sense? Michael.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |