maria-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Windows installer MWL#55 finished.
sorry .. it was 32 bit installer!
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 18:43, Peter Laursen <peter_laursen@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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
>> > 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
>> > > 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
>> > > 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
>> > 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
>> > 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
>> > that formally others cannot redistribute without violating the license.
>> > I think we should avoid, even if we're obviously not planning to sue
>> > 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
>> > - 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