harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ivanov, Alexey A" <alexey.a.iva...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [build] Downloading dependencies
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:11:28 GMT
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alexey Petrenko [mailto:alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:49 PM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [build] Downloading dependencies
>
>2006/12/20, Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>:
>> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>> > Ivanov, Alexey A wrote:
>> >> In default installation WinXP does not have this library in
system32.
>> >> This library is installed by Visual Studio 2003 and may be
installed
>by
>> >> other software which was compiled with Visual Studio 2003 (which
is
>> >> v7.1). Visual Studio 2002 (v7.0) has msvc70.dll, if I remember
>> >> correctly.
>> >
>> > Also if the person has VS.NET 2005 installed, the DLL name is
>msvcr80.dll.
>> ah, that might be why! I had 2005 installed
>:)

I believe this DLL is not needed during build, no matter what compiler
do you use. The compiler itself will find the correct DLL (it should
install it into system32).

We will need the correct DLL to be able to run natives. I mean we should
have the DLL in snapshots which are targeted at end-users who may not
have any version of Visual Studio or Compiler installed. And we should
provide the correct version of the DLL which corresponds to the version
of the compiler that was used to build the snapshots.

I even think that this DLL is not needed in deploy directory either:
when we start VM, the system will link with the DLL from system32 which
is there if one compiled the natives oneself.

Am I wrong?


Alexey, why do we need the DLL while building?


Regards,
Alexey.


>
>SY, Alexey
>
>> >> That is it may happen system lacks for this DLL. And Microsoft
>> >> recommends avoiding copying DLLs to system32 when installing an
>> >> application. Thus we better distribute this DLL in snapshots and
>further
>> >> releases because users may not have it.
>> >>
>> >> On the other hand, if a person has Microsoft compiler installed,
the
>DLL
>> >> will most likely be in system32.
>> >>
>> >> That's it.
>> >> --
>> >> Alexey A. Ivanov
>> >> Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: Alexey Petrenko [mailto:alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com]
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:49 AM
>> >>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [build] Downloading dependencies
>> >>>
>> >>> If this library exists in system32 then we do not need to
download it
>> >>> or do any additional search. Linker will do it for us.
>> >>> So we can simple remove all mentions of this library from
>dependencies.
>> >>>
>> >>> But when I suggested this last time someone reported that he has
MSVC
>> >>> but does not have this library... This looks really strange.
>> >>>
>> >>> We can remove this dependency and look... :)
>> >>>
>> >>> SY, Alexey
>> >>>
>> >>> 2006/12/20, Leo Li <liyilei1979@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>  Yes, actually we can just get MSVC71.dll from the system32
>directory
>> >> at
>> >>>> least from XP, but as for other windows versions I am not sure
the
>> >> exact
>> >>>> version of MSVC DLL. So is it ok if we do not explicitly get it
but
>> >> use
>> >>> it
>> >>>> while linking by the search path of the os system just like
other
>> >>>> kernel32.dll?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 12/20/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> >>>>>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Do we really need to download this dll?  Everyone who
has the
>> >> MSVC
>> >>>>>>> installed should have it, right?
>> >>>>>> I don't care if it's downloaded, linked or magically generated
>> >> out of
>> >>>>>> looking into tea leaves, the problem is that the build needs
>> >> manual
>> >>>>>> intervention and this is not documented anywhere.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We need to make sure that what we say you need to do is
*only*
>> >> what
>> >>> you
>> >>>>>> need to do. Every other (undocumented step) is annoying
and
slows
>> >> our
>> >>>>>> community development down.
>> >>>>> Yeah, I get it.  My point is that I'm still not convinced we
need
>> >> this
>> >>>>> to be downloaded...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> So do we?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> geir
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>> geir
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> Mark Hindess wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I tried doing fetch-depends before rebuild
but it would
fail
>> >> or
>> >>>>>>>>>>> corrupt
>> >>>>>>>>>>> dependencies often enough that it caused
more trouble
than
>> >> it
>> >>>>> solved.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can try it again I suppose - IIRC
it was ibiblio that
was
>> >> the
>> >>>>> main
>> >>>>>>>>>>> problem and that might have been a temporary
issue.
>> >>>>>>>>>> People, you do realize that if fetch-depends
breaks that
>> >> often we
>> >>>>>>>>>> have a
>> >>>>>>>>>> bigger problem than just dealing with faulty
updates?
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Imagine that every time fetch-depends doesn't
work we lose
>> >> the
>> >>>>> ability
>> >>>>>>>>>> for some guy out there to contribute something
to us.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> This is, from a community building perspective,
a *way*
>> >> bigger
>> >>>>> problem
>> >>>>>>>>>> than if the JVM ran at all after it compiled!!
>> >>>>>>>>> I remember the discussion over the msvcr71.dll
download.
Have
>> >>> there
>> >>>>> been
>> >>>>>>>>> other problems?
>> >>>>>>>> it's still not fixed!
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stefano.
>>
>>

--
Alexey A. Ivanov
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

Mime
View raw message