bzr-windows team mailing list archive

[Sidnei da Silva <sidnei.da.silva@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Martin Pool<mbp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Here are some "degrees of freedom" to consider:
>>
>> * OS version: XP vs Vista vs 7 vs 2003, etc.
>> * 32 vs 64 bit
>
> and there's also the case of 32-bit python on x64 windows

Surprisingly, that works just fine.

> python2.4 vs 2.5 vs 2.6 ...

2.6 is a *requirement* for x64. Even though 2.5 claims to support x64,
it is too painful and doesn't work in practice.

> msi vs something else?

msi would definitely be a plus, in the sense that it is way above the
simple 'self extracting installer' category. With msi one can do
*network-wide* deployments, or so I've been told. I18n of the
installer would also be much much simpler with msi, since it allows
you to build a single installer and then 'patch' it to provide the
different language translations. I find this to be really amazing
technology.

> I was thinking this morning, and it's just a blue-sky idea, but
> possibly we should stop installing Tortoise by default because it's
> relatively risky because of tight integration, hard to build, and has
> less momentum than Explorer & qbzr.  That might give us something that
> can be built by free-use compilers which would be nice.

I'm +1 on that idea, BTW.

> Possibly this case should be handled by just letting them install
> python then easy_install bzr?

That would *rock*. Doesn't this work today?

-- Sidnei