maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Peter Laursen <peter_laursen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hmmm .. installer rolls back.  Why?

64 bit build on 64 bit Win7 (UAC disabled). Default file path.  No conflicts
with ports or service name specified.  After rollback there is no track
left.


-- Peter

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 18:05, Vladislav Vaintroub <wlad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kristian Nielsen [mailto:knielsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011 14:59
> > To: Vladislav Vaintroub
> > Cc: maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; serg@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Michael
> Widenius
> > Subject: Re: [Maria-developers] Windows installer MWL#55 finished.
> >
> > "Vladislav Vaintroub" <wlad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Wizard is an MFC application. I'm sorry for that, but my Windows C/C++
> GUI programming experience is not only rusty (prior to
> this
> > > WL last time I used it was more than  a decade ago), it is also
> restricted to MFC only. Being MFC application, it will require
> at
> > > least VS Professional to build.  There is no MFC in  free Visual Studio
> Express edition,  nor in free Windows SDK.  Build and
> > > packaging process will handle missing MFC gracefully (build won't try
> to compile upgrade wizard,  package won't include it , and
> > > installer won't  start it at the end of installation).
> >
> > What license are we distributing the wizard source code under?
>
> > The reason I ask is that because of the above dependency, GPL may not be
> > appropriate (and since it sounds like a new application, nor is it
> > necessary). So we might consider another license, eg. BSD or if prefered
> some
> > other more copy-left license. Or just GPL-with-MFC-exception.
> >
> > I don't really have an opinion myself for one license or the other, I
> just
> > wanted to point out the issue to make sure it is considered by those that
> do
> > care. Since it sounds like if we just use GPL, we may be releasing
> something
> > that formally others cannot redistribute without violating the license.
> Which
> > I think we should avoid, even if we're obviously not planning to sue
> anyone
> > over it ...
>
> Not sure I'm correct person  to start discussions over the of GPL, I think
> I'm not qualified.
>
> I do know there is a plenty of established open source projects that use
> MFC, including GPLv2, such as different incarnations of
> Tortoise (SVN,CVS, BZR, HG).
>
> >From my point of view,  it is just a  system library. It came bundled with
> compiler, just like other library CRT which is non-GPL
> that we use extensively for quite important functionality like strcpy() or
> say fopen().  Maybe this explanation will satisfy GPL
> purists. I do not think CRT , MFC , ATL (libraries that come bundled with
> Visual Studio) have any written license, at least I have
> never seen one. The source code is available, and installed together with
> Visual Studio.  If  one needs to redistribute one of this
> libraries  as DLLs, there is Microsoft EULA that basically allows inclusion
> into any software . But we do not even do that, as we
> link Visual Studio libraries (CRT, and also MFC now) statically, MySQL-ish
> way.
>
> >  - Kristian.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> Post to     : maria-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

Attachment: error.jpg
Description: JPEG image