To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=49718
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 14 07:40:54 -0700 2006 ------- > mmh, sorry guys but the more i think about it, i can't see a benefit of > building this library. I didn't expect anything else, that's why I am doing this myself and not wait for you doing this ;) > Your proposal will only complicate the build and the benefit goes > to null. No it doesn't. Per default you just copy the binary into the tree on Linx like for mozilla. The rest is the same on Linux. And bulding unowinreg.dll on Windows shouldn't be a problem, should it? > If you have to much time you can spend time on the general improvement > of the build environment but you shouldn't waste your time with such minor this *is* a general improvement of the build environment. Shipping prebuilt binaries is bad, unsupportable and buggy. What if you'd need to fix something (highly unlikely here, but). What if there's a securit ybug in that dll? (How do you fix it at the source?) It's a principle in the OSS Software world that stuff needs to be rebuildable from source. And it's completely trivial to do so (two commands, see below). And it's optional for Linux as proposed of vq so it does *not* complicate the build that much except *one* cp. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
