On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 18:25 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:05 +0200, Armin Burgmeier wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 16:46 -0400, Philip Kovacs wrote: > > > I am not a big fan of "installers" as they write to the registry. I > > > prefer > > > zip archives that have no such side-effects. > > > > The gtkmm installer sets the GTKMM_BASEPATH environment variable that is > > required for the MSVC property sheets (they set the include paths to > > $(GTKMM_BASEPATH)\include\gtkmm-2.4 etc.). Simply using relative path > > names doesn't seem to work. > > Maybe it's worth mentioning (on the wiki page) that no registry settings > (or other environment variables) are set by the installer, or anything > else other than just putting files in directories.
That's actually not true. The installer sets indeed HKLM\Software\gtkmm in the registry so that it finds previous versions when upgrading. I only mentiond the GTKMM_BASEPATH variable to show that simple .zip files can't offer the same functionality as the installer (because the MSVC property sheets would not work). > > Also, if you don't know where the GTK+ bundle has been extracted to, you > > probably can't set the correct paths to the C header and library files > > in the property sheets. > > Yes, I like having the gtkmm dependencies in the same installer. It just > makes it easier. > > Rebuilding gtkmm (if we really can't provide binaries for all common > compilers) should already be easy (and Armin has documented that), but I > guess we'd welcome any suggestions/patches to improve that. Armin _______________________________________________ gtkmm-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list
