On 1/10/06, Robert Ohannessian <ROhannessian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Static runtimes will likely break all existing Allegro Windows apps and
most add-ons.
Yes, people would have to compile their add-ons the same way. That's
why I am suggesting a different name for the static runtime version.
As Allegro works now, two incompatible versions of the library are
built using the same library name.
If Allegro uses a different naming convention for static C runtimes,
then the popular add-on libs can easily follow along.
Any reason why people don't just include the msvcp70.dll (or whatever)
file with their binaries?
It doesn't work that way with VC8 and Windows XP. You have two choices:
1) Include an assembly of three DLLs (1.5MB) inside a specially named
folder with an XML manifest file.
2) Distribute an installer for the above assembly that installs it
system wide. To do this the Microsoft-approved method, it requires an
upgraded version of Windows Installer. So even more overhead is added.
Even if you go the route of 1 or 2, that doesn't help out people who
have Windows 98 or 2000. They need the DLL in the same folder, just as
it always has worked.
Alternatively you can static link everything and it works on every
Windows OS without a problem.
And of course people could use MinGW for release builds (and it's a
fair recommendation), but if Allegro can be made to play easier with
other ways of deployment, then I think they should be considered.
--
Matthew Leverton
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click