Claudio Natoli wrote: > > Seems inconsistent to me. > > There is no inconsistency, as the two requirements are aimed at very > different "issues". It was just the case that one (win32 versioning) was > inadvertently a potential (and rejected) solution to the other (auto version > check). > > The question now is simply whether or not this versioning cruft justifies > its existence, presumably for facilitating packaging and installation of > binaries (particularly those that cannot report their version readily, such > as DLLs). I personally certainly have no use for it, and I don't see us > getting the "Designed for Microsoft Windows" tick any time soon, but I have > no doubt that Magnus, in working on the win32 installer, is perhaps seeing > the need in an entirely different light.
"Designed for Microsoft Windows" :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
