Do end users download and install OSG? What on earth do they do with
it? I believe the intent of the binary packages is to provide a
shortcut for developers on Windows to get OSG and the dependencies. If
that's the case, then it wouldn't make any sense to include the MSVC.
The official distribution is the source tarball, no?
cory
Philip Lowman wrote:
..... Original Message .......
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:31:37 -0500 "Jean-Sébastien Guay" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Philip,
Yeah, those ZIP releases of the OSG 2.8.0 prebuilts should really have
the following files placed in the "bin" folder so they work
out-of-the-box on Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Windows Vista without
anyone having to install the MSVC runtime crap.
IMHO, installing the "MSVC runtime crap" is preferable to copying the
same DLLs in every release zip for every version of OSG (and potentially
every other project we work on...) and therefore having potentially tens
if not hundreds of copies of the same files on your system. Installing
the redist ensures you have one copy (the right one) and it's accessible
to all programs.
Personally I would trade the whopping 1.6 MB this would take up for the assurance that the binaries will work on all machines. Of course if you want an end-user's first experience running osgviewer to view some model they found online to be a cryptic error message, then by all means leave things the way they are. Unfortunately, not every first time user of OSG is going to have MSVC installed or the runtime libraries installed.
Yes I agree this sucks. Unfortunately the SxS runtime libraries do not come with Windows.
There is no disadvantage to including the runtime DLLs aside from an extra 4 files and 1.6MB of space used. I think this is really a no brainer.
|
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
