Why separate installers for x64/ARM? Just do what every software company this side of the century does: a 400kb installer which lets you select the packages you want, and downloads them.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu On 2011-06-03, at 11:38 AM, Zachary Gorden wrote: > Spoke with Amine and Daniel. I've agreed to the lesser evil of bundling the > FULL cmake. Reasons are if we want the BE to be flexible enough to be used > for more than just building ROS, we can't gimp cmake with the belief that no > one will need the things we didn't include. This is again on Windows. I > remain uninvolved with decisions about the Linux BE. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Colin Finck <[email protected]> wrote: > Timo Kreuzer <[email protected]> wrote: > My vote on this: > CMake: bundle it, optional on installation > x64/arm: create individual installers > > * CMake: bundle it, go for the (minimal) version without an installer. It's > nothing "exotic" to install after all, just put it together with the other > utilities in RosBE. > > * x64/arm: If build tool sizes are staying like this, create individual > installers. Just for testing, I'll try an x86/x64 multilib build of Binutils > and GCC though, would be nice to know how much smaller it is compared to > separate x86 and x64 compilers. > > So in general, I agree with Timo :-) > > > - Colin > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
