incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard E. Breed IV" <whitehous...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: ICU
Date Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:42:54 GMT

Hey folks...a friend used my laptop, and I am getting tons of emails I 
do not understand from a really smart & interesting group of 
folks...but, I need to unsubscribe and there's no such button at the 
bottom, can you help?

THanks..chard

Richard Edwards Breed IV
Richard Edwards Breed IV

--- On Wed, 7/20/11, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: ICU
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 9:31 AM

----- Original Message ----

> From: Michael Stahl <mst@openoffice.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, July 20, 2011 8:18:10 AM
> Subject: Re: ICU
> 
> On 20.07.2011 13:41, Eike Rathke wrote:
> > The most problematic is the  RPATH for URE patch, but I have no idea
> > anyway how to proceed with  libstdc++.so.6 and libgcc_s.so.1 that so far
> > were distributed with the  URE and are LGPL. If we don't, then the patch
> > would be moot.
> 
> that  is an interesting point: we currently ship binaries of C++ runtime 
>libraries in  the installation sets.
> i know that we do this for Linux and Windows, don't  know about other 
>platforms; presumably relicensing GCC or MSVC runtime under  Apache license is 
>not an option.
> 
> i guess we can probably drop the GCC  libraries nowadays, because libstdc++ 
>doesn't change its ABI as much as it used  to, so everybody should have a good 
>enough one on their system.
> 
> i wonder  what would happen if we drop MSVC runtime?
> 

Per MSVC run-time, it is typically good practice to have the installer package 
the MSVC Run-time redistributable and install it if necessary.
The redistributable is provided in two manners: (i) a full installer, and (ii) 
MSI Merge Modules that you select while building an MSI installer that provides 
them - e.g. Visual Studios Installer, InstallShield, etc.
The difference being that the full installer will install to the system, while 
(I believe) the MSI Merge Modules put the DLLs into the application installation 
only.
These are primarily provided to ensure the application runs one systems where 
the user/Microsoft has not already installed the redistributables system-wide 
(e.g. VS2010 redist on WinXP SP3).

Using the full installer would present the user with Microsoft's license  for 
acceptance; where the Merge Modules do not. For that reason the  full installer 
would likely be preferable from a license pov.

While it is not licensed under ASL, as that is the generally recommended 
practice for Windows Installers would that still be possible via Apache 
guidelines?

$0.02

Ben

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message