February 11, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote: >>Being updated to fix some quirks on FC4, >>since recls/stlsoft doesn't support GCC4... > > There are some new functions in std.file that might serve. Just a silly little header problem, nothing major... See http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/dmd-0.140-gcc4.patch --anders |
February 11, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Derek Parnell | Derek Parnell wrote: > Ok, it looks like AB beat me to it. I was going to go via NSIS too. Feel free to look the script over to see if I missed anything... Some "D man" artwork for the installer could be useful, as well ? (eg http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=135857) --anders |
February 11, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Anders F Björklund | "Anders F Björklund" <afb@algonet.se> wrote in message news:dsk7eq$p5l$2@digitaldaemon.com... > Just a silly little header problem, nothing major... > > See http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/dmd-0.140-gcc4.patch Thanks. |
February 11, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote: >>Just a silly little header problem, nothing major... >>See http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/dmd-0.140-gcc4.patch > > Thanks. No problem, the rest of the GDC diff is here if you want it: http://www.algonet.se/~afb/d/diffs/dmd-0.140-gdc-0.17.diff.gz The more of the GDC patches that can go "upstream" into DMD, the better. (i.e. with the proper #if's and such, that is...) Biggest diffs right now is stderr fix, and merging HTML entities. And of course adding version(Unix) to DMD, in addition to linux ? --anders |
February 12, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote: > "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:dshpvp$m1g$1@digitaldaemon.com... > <snip> > > In keeping with avoiding an installer, dmd is designed to not require any > registry entries, environment variable edits, or even having the PATH set. > Uninstall is as easy as just blowing away the directory it's installed in. > How come that's not the case with Linux? Why can't I just unzip dmd somewhere and make it work? (or maybe I can but I'm too stupid to figure it out?) |
February 13, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | In article <dsir7e$1meh$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says... > > > >I personally don't like installers - not because they do a bad job, but >because >I never know *what* they're doing to my system. Are they mucking with the >registry? Installing spyware? Replacing uptodate drivers with older, buggy >versions? Phoning home? I don't know its name. but the installer used by BZFlag (www.bzflag.org) says everything it does, with a nice scrollbar to see every move of it. Ciao --- http://www.mariottini.net/roberto/ |
February 15, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Roberto Mariottini | Roberto Mariottini wrote: > I don't know its name. but the installer used by BZFlag (www.bzflag.org) says > everything it does, with a nice scrollbar to see every move of it. They use NSIS: http://nsis.sourceforge.net/ |
February 21, 2006 Re: Time to release 1.0 (installers) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter Bright | Walter Bright wrote: > "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dshpvp$m1g$1@digitaldaemon.com... > >> Anders F Björklund wrote: <snip> >> >>> Walter does not want to do it for DMD (for Windows and Linux), and due to the non-distribute license nobody else can either. >> >> <snip> >> >> Does DMD really need an installer? Opening a .zip file and >> extracting its contents isn't that difficult an operation. > > > I personally don't like installers - not because they do a bad job, > but because I never know *what* they're doing to my system. Are they > mucking with the registry? Installing spyware? Replacing uptodate > drivers with older, buggy versions? Phoning home? Whoah! Installing a 'nice FREE screensaver with live paradise scenery' is a bit different than installing Mozilla or Firefox. > With zip files, I can see what's going to happen, and my unzipper > isn't going to execute any code from the archive. We're talking Windoze here! Users simply consider a zip thingy home-made, no matter how good the program itself would be. And they hate having to do _anything_ themselves. > In keeping with avoiding an installer, dmd is designed to not require > any registry entries, environment variable edits, or even having the > PATH set. Uninstall is as easy as just blowing away the directory > it's installed in. Just _having_ an installer doesn't create registry tweaks, environment mucking, or path changes. It's just another brick in the wall of deceit and make-believe that is _required_ between the user and what's happening for real. And if there's nothing happening, the easier for you. But it sure has to _look_ like a Grand Opening. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation