2008/10/29, Sebastien Lelong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Rob, > > > > > Somewhat surprising that both ZIP-files are downloaded 1:1, while for > > the tar.gz files it is 1:3. Well, maybe the figures are too small to > > draw conclusions. > > Doesn't this mean there are three times more windows users than *nix ones, > and the latter know what to download ? :) As a windows user, I'm sure there must be an other explanation, but i have not figured out which :(
> > > > In my opinion the final 0.1 release should in principle be not much > > different in contents/functionality than beta 0.1. Only apparent > > mistakes or omissions should be corrected, like samples that didn't make > > it the validation phase. Also simple improvements could be made like > > those in the HTML docs. > > Let's wait a little if there come suggestions from the users. > > I'd also like to put testing stuff (matrix, html pages, ...) to show how we > test things, how we want to control the quality, etc... > This also gives a nice overview of which PICs are the most tested, which > have the most samples, so users can say: "ok, this one seems to have high > support, I'll start with it"; I don't know if this is wise. There are a lot of users that just get a program and use it. We should aim for them. There are also users who like to have more detail and background. They can find this at this project site. > > > The compiler distribution may add a reference to Jallib. The compiler > > and Jallib might be more integrated: now people have to 'shop' at 2 > > places to obtain both the compiler and libs. Maybe an idea to > > redistribute the compiler as part of Jallib? We can then drop Kyle's > > device files and integrate the compiler in our download packages. > > Absolutely ! Including the compiler distribution within jallib would be > easy. Including device files within the compiler's distribution would be... > I don't know, we need to ask Kyle :) > > About having the compiler within a jallib packages, do yo think it's worth > doing this for the final 0.1 ? I think this is a good idea *if* it is supported by Kyle. It should be clear where to get the jal compiler package. This could be jallib project or Kyle's site. It could be both, if both supply the same package. If there are different packages, it should be clear which one is intended for which situation. an option would be: - jallib distribution also contains the compiler. - Kyle refers to this distrubtion as 'complete package' and may copy this to his own site - compiler sources are on Kyle's site - Compiler only (exe's, without libs or device files) are on Kyles site This way Kyle can release updates of his compiler without dependency with jallib. But you always need a jallib distribution (or your own library set) to get operational. And the jallib distrubution is the best place to start or update with. Joep --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
