thank you for your explanation, Alex, well, im both a Linux and Windows user, but i didnt know this.
Its just i have got several apps that cannot work because of the issue i said above.... But, anywan, im ok now, and thank you so much On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Alex Ionescu <ion...@videotron.ca> wrote: > Again all of this is irrelevant: since I think you are a Linux user, I can > understand why you are confused. > > On Windows, all HTTP communication is done by WinHTTP and/or WinINET, > nobody writes their own custom socket code. > > WinHTTP/WinINET control the proxy settings for the machine. In fact, if you > use Google Chrome on Windows (or Safari) and go to the proxy/connection > settings, you will see "IE's" proxy connection dialog -- because these > settings/dialog are owned by the OS Library, not the individual > applications. > > Therefore, the installer will use 100% the same settings as the web > browser, including the same protocol. > > So, as I stated, if the browser can download foo.exe, so will the online > installer. > > -- > Best regards, > Alex Ionescu > > On 2011-06-03, at 1:50 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: > > > whatever you use for downloading the installer has to be configured to > connect throught the proxy and also to use its dns services for host name > resolving. if the installer itself isn't aware of the need for proxy server > (or is not able to connect through socks or whatever the proxy uses) it > won't be usually able to resolve the hostname it's trying to connect to > (depends on the exact network configuration). also the default route to the > internet would be missing or direct outgoing connections would be blocked > (which they usually are otherwise you wouldn't be forced to use the proxy > server in the first place) so the traffic generated by the installer > wouldn't have any means to reach its destination. > > > > I didn't want to derail the discussion and I apologize for that. I'll > shut up next time. > > > > Kamil > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" <ion...@videotron.ca> > > To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev@reactos.org> > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ... > > > > > >> Since online installers use HTTP, and the user got the installer off > HTTP, what would a proxy server change? > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Alex Ionescu > >> > >> On 2011-06-03, at 12:33 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: > >> > >>> I didn't want to spam this discussion but I have to.. What every other > software company also does is refusing to believe someone might be behind a > proxy server. If you go this way, please make sure the installer doesn't > need a direct connection. Also online installers are generally a major pain > in the ass if you don't provide an offline installer too. > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Ionescu > >>> To: ReactOS Development List > >>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:56 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ... > >>> > >>> > >>> 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 <co...@reactos.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreu...@web.de> 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 > >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ros-dev mailing list > >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ros-dev mailing list > >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ros-dev mailing list > >>> Ros-dev@reactos.org > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Ros-dev mailing list > >> Ros-dev@reactos.org > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ros-dev mailing list > > Ros-dev@reactos.org > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
