Hello, On Jun 8, 2011, at 19:40 , Viktor Tarasov wrote: > Le 08/06/2011 15:10, Viktor Tarasov a écrit : >> Le 08/06/2011 14:31, Martin Paljak a écrit : >>> Hello, >>> On Jun 7, 2011, at 19:15 , Viktor Tarasov wrote: >>>>> Seems reasonable. Will see how it affects the size of the installer. >>>> >>>> The difference in size will be around 1M (both pkcs#11 and minidriver are >>>> static) . >>> Hmm... Given that the current installer weights around 1.8M, adding another >>> megabyte would be a lot (is this the raw file size or an compressed >>> installer?). >> >> Ok, >> in you previous mail you've suggested the variant 'C' as a possible >> solution. In this case the difference in the MSI size will be around 0.5M . >> Can this one be adopted ? > > > Maybe this helps: > variant 'C' compiled with 'Minimize Size' optimization has the same size as > the actual OpenSC-0.12.1-win32.msi .
There was a real life issue in Estonia with OpenSC and maximum optimization with one of the MS compilers, I should try to find the thread from my inbox. Other than that, if optimization works well, choosing option D (static dll-s in system folder, opensc.dll in program files for tools) with more optimization would be the most consistent, have you tried how big such installer would be? Best, Martin -- @MartinPaljak.net +3725156495 _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
