12:39 p.m.
SL Baur <steve(a)vmailer.xemacs.org> writes:
Do you have the capability to deal with tar.gz? If not I suppose we
can make a .zip for them.
I think Windows 95 and Windows NT can deal with .tar.gz just fine,
because the most popular unzipping extension (WinZip) has been
reported to handle them.
Still, when we make binary distributions for Windows, it would
probably make sense to zip them, for the sake of convenience.
--
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
A radioactive cat has eighteen half-lives.
12:55 p.m.
New subject: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs in man/*.texi
At 01:39 PM 6/9/98 +0200, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
SL Baur <steve(a)vmailer.xemacs.org> writes:
> Do you have the capability to deal with tar.gz? If not I suppose we
> can make a .zip for them.
I think Windows 95 and Windows NT can deal with .tar.gz just fine,
because the most popular unzipping extension (WinZip) has been
reported to handle them.
Still, when we make binary distributions for Windows, it would
probably make sense to zip them, for the sake of convenience.
I am assuming the cygwin dist will be .tar.gz
andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
" .sigs are like your face - rarely seen by you and uglier than you think"
Dr Andy Piper, Technical Architect, Parallax Solutions Ltd
mail: andyp(a)parallax.co.uk web: www.parallax.co.uk/~andyp
5:25 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> wrote:
Still, when we make binary distributions for Windows, it would
probably make sense to zip them, for the sake of convenience.
Has anyone thought about how to distribute native Windows binary
distributions? I was hoping for something more than .zip or .tar.gz
files. VC++ 5.0 comes with a free/limited version of InstallShield5,
and I was hoping for something that used it.
[ Actually, I'm thinking about building a CDROM that contains the entire
XEmacs 21.0 distribution, including optional packages. (BTW, this
would be for me, my friends, and co-workers, and would *not* be a
commercial CDROM.) It would be cool to pop in a CDROM, run setup, and
then point-and-click to choose what to install. However, the free
version has a limitation on the number of modules that can be
installed, and so packages may have to be distributed as .zip files
(unless someone has access to the full version of InstallShield5). ]
-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
7:26 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 09:25:58AM -0700, Darryl Okahata wrote:
(unless someone has access to the full version of InstallShield5)
I have. Now, afaik, distributing such a binary is illegal[1]. If you
can convince me that I'm wrong, and provide me with binaries, I'll
probably be able to make a fully fledged autoinstalling executable for
the release.
OG.
[1] Commercial/non commercial use is not relevant here. GPL is.
8:10 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com> wrote:
[1] Commercial/non commercial use is not relevant here. GPL is.
You've got a point. After re-reading the GPL, it does appear to be
illegal. However, in that case, Cygnus is violating the GPL with
gnu-win32, which is distributed as an InstallShield executable.
-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
8:59 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
Darryl Okahata wrote:
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr> wrote:
> Still, when we make binary distributions for Windows, it would
> probably make sense to zip them, for the sake of convenience.
Has anyone thought about how to distribute native Windows binary
distributions? I was hoping for something more than .zip or .tar.gz
files. VC++ 5.0 comes with a free/limited version of InstallShield5,
and I was hoping for something that used it.
I've glanced at doing this because I thought that it would be a good
idea too.
Installshield is the mswindows way of doing things, so using it would
make mswindows users feel comfortable. It could also add an XEmacs icon
to the "Start" menu, associate .el files with XEmacs etc.
Using InstallShield also has the big advantage that we could set
EMACSPACKAGEPATH and maybe some other variables in the user's registry
at install time. This would mean that the user wouldn't have to set
environment variables in order to override the compile-time defaults.
(This is particularly pertinent to the package path; I haven't been able
to force nmake/cl to accept "C:/Program Files/xemacs/packages" as a
compile-time default package path because of the space in that pathname,
and that is probably where the user would want to keep packages).
A sensible install tree for XEmacs on mswindows might look like:
PROGS\XEmacs\
packages\
XEmacs-21.0\
bin
info
lisp
where PROGS should default to "C:\Program Files".
Unfortunately, XEmacs currently fails to cope with such a layout because
it expects a UNIX-style install tree; it can't find it's root directory
(paths-find-emacs-roots fails) and it also can't find any of the exec,
info or data directories.
Jonathan.
--
Jonathan Harris | jhar(a)tardis.ed.ac.uk
London, England | Jonathan-Harris(a)psion.com
9:32 p.m.
New subject: Binary distributions [ was Re: [PROPOSAL] fix for bad Xrefs ... ]
Jonathan Harris <jhar(a)tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
A sensible install tree for XEmacs on mswindows might look like:
PROGS\XEmacs\
packages\
XEmacs-21.0\
bin
info
lisp
where PROGS should default to "C:\Program Files".
What's the philosophy for packages? A scheme such as the above
works only if packages are independent of XEmacs versions. However, in
practice, I have not found this to be true; packages tend to depend on a
particular XEmacs version or vice-versa. This may violate the package
philosophy, but what about:
PROGS\XEmacs-21.0\
bin
info
lisp
packages
Unfortunately, XEmacs currently fails to cope with such a layout
because
it expects a UNIX-style install tree; it can't find it's root directory
(paths-find-emacs-roots fails) and it also can't find any of the exec,
info or data directories.
The native mswindows port has no such trouble. Are you talking
about the cygwin port?
-- Darryl Okahata
Internet: darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
9666
days inactive
9666
days old
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andy Piper -
Darryl Okahata -
Hrvoje Niksic -
Jonathan Harris -
Olivier Galibert