Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > Seems inconsistent to me.
> 
> There is no inconsistency, as the two requirements are aimed at very
> different "issues". It was just the case that one (win32 versioning) was
> inadvertently a potential (and rejected) solution to the other (auto version
> check).
> 
> The question now is simply whether or not this versioning cruft justifies
> its existence, presumably for facilitating packaging and installation of
> binaries (particularly those that cannot report their version readily, such
> as DLLs). I personally certainly have no use for it, and I don't see us
> getting the "Designed for Microsoft Windows" tick any time soon, but I have
> no doubt that Magnus, in working on the win32 installer, is perhaps seeing
> the need in an entirely different light.

"Designed for Microsoft Windows"  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to