Not sure if that actually happens, but I meant that c:\windows\system32\comctl32.dll is the original, while c:\windows\winsxs\comctl32-latest-version.dll\comctl32.dll is a symlink.
Best regards, Alex Ionescu On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Giannis Adamopoulos < giannis.adamopou...@reactos.org> wrote: > You mean multiple versions of the same dll are in fact just one dll in > some cases? > > ReactOS Development List <ros-dev@reactos.org> wrote on Sun, March 8th, > 2015, 9:50 AM: > > ActCtx or "Fusion" is part of WinSxS yes, and activation contexts can be > > built from manifest files, registry, app compat, so we don't have to > > necessarily use the "Winxs" part which is manifest-only, but rather > > leverage the actual "Fusion" backend. > > > > FYI, a lot of people don't know this, but those 14000 folders/files in > > WinSxS are actually sym (or hard?) links. Explorer shows you that the > > folder is xx GB but in fact it's tiny -- most of those DLLs are symlinks > > to the real ones in system32. > > > > Best regards, > > Alex Ionescu > > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 9:51 PM, David Quintana (gigaherz) < > > gigah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hmm I may be completely mistaken but doesn''t Windows use the ActCtx > stuff > > > for compatibility profiles? Wouldn't we be able to use > > > "forward-compatibility" profiles? If that's right, it may be the > cleanest > > > system for it. > > > > > > On 7 March 2015 at 22:38, Jerome Gardou <jerome.gar...@reactos.org> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Le 07/03/2015 22:21, Timo Kreuzer a écrit : > > >> > > >> Am 07.03.2015 um 20:04 schrieb Colin Finck: > > >> > > >> Am 07.03.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Timo Kreuzer: > > >> > > >> The file system > > >> redirection would redirect system32 into merged folders, containing > the > > >> version specific DLLs, while everything that is not existing in this > > >> folder will be taken from the original system32. Potential naming > > >> scheme: system32.601 system32.602, etc. > > >> > > >> Isn't that the same problem WinSxS tries to solve? Do we really need > to > > >> introduce another folder scheme for multiple DLL versions here? > > >> > > >> AFAIK SxS only works with manifests, not with registry configuration > > >> (correct me if I'm wrong), so we'd probably need a modified solution > here > > >> anyway. And have you ever had a look into your Windows/winsxs folder? > DLL > > >> hell 2.0! My winsxs folder on Win7 contains > 14.000 subfolders. (ok, > one > > >> might take that as an argument, that another few hundred or thousand > > >> wouldn't hurt so much ;-)) > > >> > > >> You're not wrong, but we could store the manifest into the registry. > With > > >> a nice config tool, that would be completely transparent to the user. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Okay, SxS manages one DLL per folder while your idea is to have > folders > > >> with multiple DLLs of the same version. But if we do file system > > >> redirection anyway, this should be solvable. Or am I missing something > > >> here? > > >> > > >> I don't see the relationship between FS redirection and SxS. If we do > the > > >> former, we don't need the latter. In fact FS redirection wouldn't > work very > > >> well in an environment, where each DLL lives in it's own folder. > > >> > > >> > > >> We need full SxS support anyway, so why not make use of it for this > > >> task as well? > > >> > > >> > > >> I just think that a wow64 like FS redirection might be the cleanest > and > > >> easiest approach. We are not going to handle all kinds of different > DLL > > >> versions in all kinds of mixes, just a relatively small set of major > OS > > >> versions. And each of them with a pretty consistent set of DLLs. > > >> But that doesn't mean that I would rule out sxs. If we can easily > provide > > >> an sxs solution, that doesn't result in a huge mess, we can go that > way. > > >> > > >> Timo > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Ros-dev mailing listRos-dev@reactos.orghttp:// > www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Ros-dev mailing list > > >> Ros-dev@reactos.org > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ros-dev mailing list > > > Ros-dev@reactos.org > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ros-dev mailing list > > Ros-dev@reactos.org > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > Ros-dev@reactos.org > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
