Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread marius adrian popa
Firebird is not so heavy on external projects LibreOffice it is for example in exernal 625M total for firebird for example they have a make file and a script to extract it also a set of patches for it https://gitorious.org/libreoffice/core/source/685ec1899435037205d98a102a32ca8b6a4836d0:external/f

Re: [Firebird-devel] Alpha 2 - Trace API - Stored Function support?

2014-02-17 Thread Thomas Steinmaurer
Vlad, >> will there be or is there already support for stored function execution >> in the Trace API similar to stored procedures? > > Sure, it is under development. Thanks for the information. Regards, Thomas -- M

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread supp...@ibknowledgebase.com
Hi, >This way those who know what they have installed can save traffic. Traffic does not matter anymore. Regards, Alexey Kovyazin -- Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Clo

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 02/17/14 20:47, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > On 17/02/2014 13:39, Alex Peshkoff wrote: >> The problem for me is not bytes. I dislike a whole approach called >> 'Everything needed for windows build should be present in single >> repository'. I think that building firebird anyway requires

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
On 17/02/2014 13:39, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > The problem for me is not bytes. I dislike a whole approach called > 'Everything needed for windows build should be present in single > repository'. I think that building firebird anyway requires at lease > minimum qualification (without it - why build

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 02/17/14 20:27, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > On 17/02/2014 13:08, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: >> 17.02.2014 17:01, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >>> - The data file is common for win32 and win64. If we include the binary >>> files in our source repository (and I think we should) it'

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Dimitry Sibiryakov
17.02.2014 17:27, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > I estimate a very few number of files summing around 15 MB. > > This is much less than current ICU 3 sources, with thousand files > summing 50 MB and nobody died yet. So, there are three options: 1) Sources in repository (50 MB) 2) Binarie

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
On 17/02/2014 13:08, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 17.02.2014 17:01, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >> - The data file is common for win32 and win64. If we include the binary >> files in our source repository (and I think we should) it's less megabytes. >> >> Do you agree with above? >I disa

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Dimitry Sibiryakov
17.02.2014 17:01, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > - The data file is common for win32 and win64. If we include the binary > files in our source repository (and I think we should) it's less megabytes. > > Do you agree with above? I disagree with including these files into the repository.

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
On 17/02/2014 07:49, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: > Adriano, > >> It seems that Windows people decided that a multi-megabyte library >> should not be included in Firebird. > IIRC, the ICU site had an ability to generate stripped libs online. Is > that still possible? We might use that for officially dist

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Dmitry Yemanov
Adriano, > It seems that Windows people decided that a multi-megabyte library > should not be included in Firebird. IIRC, the ICU site had an ability to generate stripped libs online. Is that still possible? We might use that for officially distributed packages and let people dealing with multi

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
On 17/02/2014 05:57, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > On 02/14/14 21:52, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >> On 14/02/2014 15:35, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >>> 14.02.2014 21:16, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >>> > Why to compile ICU by hands at all? What's wrong with precompiled > binaries? >>>

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Roman Simakov
2014-02-17 12:57 GMT+04:00 Alex Peshkoff : > I was always against adding a lot of standard foreign code to our tree. > Going this way we may end with having compiler and C-library in it :) > > So please let's avoid a lot of foreign libraries in our tree. For me > it's not a question of src size (at

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Paul Reeves
On Monday 17 February 2014 09:38:44 Alex Peshkoff wrote: > On 02/15/14 11:45, Paul Reeves wrote: > > On Friday 14 February 2014 18:24:40 Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > >> 14.02.2014 18:16, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > >>> If not, build will not be simple and may need extra download. > >> > >>

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 02/14/14 21:52, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > On 14/02/2014 15:35, Dmitry Yemanov wrote: >> 14.02.2014 21:16, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >> Why to compile ICU by hands at all? What's wrong with precompiled binaries? >>> That is a interesting question. >>> >>> Would nee

Re: [Firebird-devel] Update ICU in Windows

2014-02-17 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 02/15/14 11:45, Paul Reeves wrote: > On Friday 14 February 2014 18:24:40 Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: >> 14.02.2014 18:16, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >>> If not, build will not be simple and may need extra download. >> It already needs extra downloads: unixtools, Inno Setup, Visual Stu