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 at all? use prebuilt > binaries please.) which should be enough to obtain from the net required > additional packages. > > I can agree when some not ideally supported software (like editline or > btyacc) is added to the repository. But adding to it a library (does not > matter, sources or binaries) well supported by big company is a logical > nonsense on my mind. > > Windows has not such things as /usr/include /bin, etc.
Dumping extra packages on the filesystem requires Visual Studio configuration, PATH configuration, etc. But if we choose rule of not include others packages, we must do for all. What is a "well supported" and a "big company"? It may be a completely different thing for you and me. Then, libreadline, libtommath, btyacc and everything must be removed. We must work with their maintainer to support out changes and bug fixes. Adriano ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls. Read the Whitepaper. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
