sorry .. it was 32 bit installer! On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 18:43, Peter Laursen <peter_laur...@webyog.com>wrote:
> hmmm .. installer rolls back. Why? > > 64 bit build on 64 bit Win7 (UAC disabled). Default file path. No > conflicts with ports or service name specified. After rollback there is no > track left. > > > -- Peter > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 18:05, Vladislav Vaintroub > <w...@montyprogram.com>wrote: > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Kristian Nielsen [mailto:kniel...@knielsen-hq.org] >> > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011 14:59 >> > To: Vladislav Vaintroub >> > Cc: maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net; s...@askmonty.org; Michael >> Widenius >> > Subject: Re: [Maria-developers] Windows installer MWL#55 finished. >> > >> > "Vladislav Vaintroub" <w...@montyprogram.com> writes: >> > >> > > Wizard is an MFC application. I'm sorry for that, but my Windows C/C++ >> GUI programming experience is not only rusty (prior to >> this >> > > WL last time I used it was more than a decade ago), it is also >> restricted to MFC only. Being MFC application, it will require >> at >> > > least VS Professional to build. There is no MFC in free Visual >> Studio Express edition, nor in free Windows SDK. Build and >> > > packaging process will handle missing MFC gracefully (build won't try >> to compile upgrade wizard, package won't include it , and >> > > installer won't start it at the end of installation). >> > >> > What license are we distributing the wizard source code under? >> >> > The reason I ask is that because of the above dependency, GPL may not be >> > appropriate (and since it sounds like a new application, nor is it >> > necessary). So we might consider another license, eg. BSD or if prefered >> some >> > other more copy-left license. Or just GPL-with-MFC-exception. >> > >> > I don't really have an opinion myself for one license or the other, I >> just >> > wanted to point out the issue to make sure it is considered by those >> that do >> > care. Since it sounds like if we just use GPL, we may be releasing >> something >> > that formally others cannot redistribute without violating the license. >> Which >> > I think we should avoid, even if we're obviously not planning to sue >> anyone >> > over it ... >> >> Not sure I'm correct person to start discussions over the of GPL, I think >> I'm not qualified. >> >> I do know there is a plenty of established open source projects that use >> MFC, including GPLv2, such as different incarnations of >> Tortoise (SVN,CVS, BZR, HG). >> >> >From my point of view, it is just a system library. It came bundled >> with compiler, just like other library CRT which is non-GPL >> that we use extensively for quite important functionality like strcpy() or >> say fopen(). Maybe this explanation will satisfy GPL >> purists. I do not think CRT , MFC , ATL (libraries that come bundled with >> Visual Studio) have any written license, at least I have >> never seen one. The source code is available, and installed together with >> Visual Studio. If one needs to redistribute one of this >> libraries as DLLs, there is Microsoft EULA that basically allows >> inclusion into any software . But we do not even do that, as we >> link Visual Studio libraries (CRT, and also MFC now) statically, MySQL-ish >> way. >> >> > - Kristian. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >> Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp