On 04/26/2010 06:19:31 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
>
> On 27-Apr-10, at 1:58 AM, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
> >
> > The problem addressed is that there only binaries available
> > for MS Windows are pre-packaged in an installer executable.
> > This means that anyone who wants stock binaries but a
> > modified installer has to recompile from source.
>
> For the OS X package, I chose to simply make two packages - one the
> generic binaries, and one for whatever configuration and keys are
> needed for a particular deployment. Could you do the same on Windows?
Sure, but this greatly increases the complexity for the
end-user. Just adding another installer at least doubles the
complexity. A custom install can be one-click. The stock
OpenVPN installer (last I looked) presented the user
with many choices and is far more complex than a 1-click
install.
Getting the users to do anything at all can be tricky
(especially at the outlying ends of the pay scale).
The less that can go wrong the better.
> > But this only makes sense if OpenVPN _will_ release
> > unpackaged MS Windows binaries. It makes sense to me;
> > the project is already releasing unpackaged Linux
> > binaries and it now talking about doing the same
> > for OS/X binaries.
>
> I don't think unpackaged OS X binaries are very useful, which is why
> I
>
> created the pkg+dmg.
I agree, because the Apple development kit is shipped,
if not installed, on every Mac. (Last I looked.) And
because ./configure ; make is painless. MS Windows on
the other hand requires additional software
to compile anything. And the FOSS choices, which
are the the ones most universally available, are non-trivial
to install and use.
I'd bet cross compiling Un*x-to-Mac is easier too, but
I have no experience to back that up.
Now that OpenVPN is accepting more patches cross compiling
Un*x-to-MSWindows will probably get easier but it will
never be easy.
Karl <k...@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
