Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

When seeking additional pain along these lines, your attention is drawn to sqlitejdbc. I did get it to compile and pass its test suite; actually integrating it with a project, not so much. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:39 PM, E. Timothy Uy wrote: > " 40-80 hours digging deep into

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

In windows, I believe you want to use the "function level linking" option to get it to drop the most functions when they aren't used. Particularly for the amalgamation, I think this will give you the tightest link. By default, I believe the optimization only operates on compilation units, meaning

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: > All; > > When you compile the amalgamation with your source code, doesn't the > compiler reject/not include/remove/doesn't consider the code that could > have been generated from the actual final build?  In other

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

On 27 Jun 2012, at 1:48am, Stephen Chrzanowski wrote: > When you compile the amalgamation with your source code, doesn't the > compiler reject/not include/remove/doesn't consider the code that could > have been generated from the actual final build? In other words, if you

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

All; When you compile the amalgamation with your source code, doesn't the compiler reject/not include/remove/doesn't consider the code that could have been generated from the actual final build? In other words, if you just have one function being used out of 10,000 functions, the final binary

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

" 40-80 hours digging deep into how System.Data.SQLite.dll is built " Lol, I actually did this. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Rondeau wrote: > The answer of "just add sqlite.c to your project" is great when you're > making something in C. The entire world

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

While I appreciate the FAQ, it seems to assume that C# / .Net / Mono are environments where one always makes a platform-specific build, or one always builds ones dependancie. This is not the case, nor should it always be the case. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Joe Mistachkin

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

Andrew Rondeau wrote: > > For example, I just can't ship a .Net .exe that uses x-copy > deployment, and runs on Linux/Mac (via Mono) unless I invest about > 40-80 hours digging deep into how System.Data.SQLite.dll is built. > Compiling System.Data.SQLite for Mono is fairly easy as long as you

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

The answer of "just add sqlite.c to your project" is great when you're making something in C. The entire world does not use C, nor is C (or C++) always the best option for a particular project. Timothy Uy's offer actually makes a lot of sense if you're using something other then C or C++. For

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26/06/12 08:55, bi...@aol.com wrote: > That's a great suggestion but as I said, my main app is only 400 KB. > I'd really like to keep it that way. Well, it isn't 400kb if you depend on SQLite being somewhere else on the system. And I find it even

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:55 AM, wrote: > I do realize and appreciate the public domain source is available. My best > option is recompiling the DLL but since the project and make files aren't > designed for Visual Studio it will require time that like everyone her I > cherish.

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

On 26 Jun 2012, at 4:55pm, bi...@aol.com wrote: > Thank you everyone who took the time to comment on my Windows DLL question. > I'm also glad I'm not the only one who sees the problem with not having > the version in the resource block. This really would have helped when Chrome > and

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

Thank you everyone who took the time to comment on my Windows DLL question. I'm also glad I'm not the only one who sees the problem with not having the version in the resource block. This really would have helped when Chrome and Firefox updated to a new version of SQLite and all my code

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

Bill, Andrew, PA Newsgroups et al., Would you be willing to invest in a subscription for a compiled, signed, non-Debug, Windows-deployed SQLite DLL with resource information? We would consider compiling and hosting the files for you. In addition, we could offer improved stemming (multiple

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/06/12 23:38, Andrew Rondeau wrote: > Because my time is valuable; I'm still baffled why you think adding one source file to your project is a huge undertaking, but somehow getting a "community" going, debating how you want things, fiddling

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

On Tuesday, June 26, 2012, Andrew Rondeau wrote: > Because my time is valuable; and my peers' time is valuable as well. > > For example, if I make a Mac application, I can target the SQLites shipped > with Mac. Problem solved, my valuable time can go to something else. > > Since I don't want any

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

Because my time is valuable; and my peers' time is valuable as well. For example, if I make a Mac application, I can target the SQLites shipped with Mac. Problem solved, my valuable time can go to something else. On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Roger Binns wrote: >

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 25/06/12 11:21, Andrew Rondeau wrote: > IMO, I've been somewhat dissapointed with sqlite's deployment scenario > on Windows. Perhaps this is an area that needs a bit more community > involvement? You really are looking this the wrong way.

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

IMO, I've been somewhat dissapointed with sqlite's deployment scenario on Windows. Perhaps this is an area that needs a bit more community involvement? On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bill Pytlovany wrote:

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Bill Pytlovany wrote: > Can the download page include a distributable version without debug > information or would this require paid support? > Anyone else thinks this is a bug? > A "bug" is when the software gets the wrong answer. This is not a

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

Bill Pytlovany wrote: > Can the download page include a distributable version without debug > information or would this require paid support? You are free (both as in speech and as in beer) to build your own from source, using any options you want. It doesn't even have to be a

Re: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

Message- From: sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@sqlite.org] On Behalf Of Bill Pytlovany Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:05 PM To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: [sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else? I'm very pleased with sqlite3.dll for Windows and I mainly

[sqlite] I consider this a bug. Anyone else?

I'm very pleased with sqlite3.dll for Windows and I mainly include it with my product because one of our features is to help users manage cookies. Since both Chrome and Firefox use SQLite I'm required to use sqlite3.dll to access their information. So thank you, thank you! I've asked this in the