On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:10 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> >> The subject of not having an official binary package was brought up. >> We couldn't think of a reason why not except no body wants or has the >> time to do it. > > That's not it. > > The problem is MS's creation. We can either ship an 'official' msvcrt.dll > based, DDK-built flavor, or the crap of the month 2005 or 2005sp1 or 2008 > or 2008sp1 binary. Let's face it, flavor of the week doesn't work for an > approach to a C runtime. >
Now that you mention it I do seem to vaguely remember something about this. So unless the MS gets there act together (which I doubt will happen in anytime soon) we won't see any 64-bit binaries? > I'm likely to ship that DDK built flavor if only to help ensure compatibility, > and let the Studio team know that they don't know what they are doing. They > deliver a fun product for building something. I know, I used it almost for > 2 decades. > So selecting a version that is most popular say 2005(sp1) and only using that one is out of the question? > They are entirely clueless at delivering a product to be used across multiple > developers from multiple organizations to accomplish multiple purposes. They > just can't grok that much multiplicity, and observe the central MS tenant of > forcing to upgrade early and upgrade often. This isn't compatible with open > source binaries. Just look at how frequently gcc is willing to bump the ver > major.... like next to never. > > But I have to agree, MS's vs 2005+ series is a mess with all the .manifest and .local and bah! ~Jorge
