Re: [AD] Allegro 4.2.0

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives ]


> This reminds me: should update the allegro-dlls package as well or can we
> say this supercedes them? In my mind, they serve a slightly different
> purpose: the binary packages for compilers are for developers who don't
> want to build from sources, the DLL package is for people who just want to
> update their DLLs.
>
The allegro-dlls package should just die a horrible death. It is not
what you think it is...

It is a mix between a binary and source distribution of Allegro. It
was intended for MSVC users who didn't want to download MinGW to build
Allegro. You are supposed to download the source, then download the
"allegro-dll" package on top of that. It comes with a batch file that
builds Allegro libs, examples, etc.

It should have never been made, as people unwilling to download MinGW
should just have to use a binary package. As it is now, the "dll"
package is not maintained nor will it probably ever be again. I'd just
hide it from the main page if possible.

I have no problems with an "end user" package being made that
basically is just "alleg42.dll". But that can go in the existing "end
user" category, not the poorly named "allegro-dlls" category.

--
Matthew Leverton




Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+ http://listengine.tuxfamily.org/