Re: [Chicken-users] Windows binary manifest

[felix winkelmann]

On 2/4/06, Brandon J. Van Every <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> - is a flat directory structure really what's wanted?  I had thought
> /bin, /include, /lib, /man directories would be more reasonable.  What
> is standard practice?  I don't see a reason for the Windows distro to be
> "different" than other platforms.

For pure win32 applications (not gcc based, or imitating a UNIX
environment) I thought that a flat structure is what people use most.
You can of course choose a different layout, but there aren't that
many files.

(On a side note - what do you think of putting in as documentation?
The pdf, a single HTML page, or a bundle of HTML pages? I can't
decide right now, but I guess a bundle would be most convenient)

>
> - there's a csi-static.exe but no csc-static.exe.  Is the latter desired?

Yes. Sometimes it can be convenient to have a static exe without
dynamic (DLL) loading issues. And chicken-static should be enough
for that case.

>
> - do you really want chicken.dll, chicken_gui.dll, and uchicken.dll?  As
> opposed to libchicken.dll, libchicken_gui.dll, and libuchicken.dll.  The
> lack of consistency in prefixing is confusing.

Yes, it's probably better to follow your advice.


cheers,
felix