Re: binary packages

[Paul Kienzle]

On Feb 16, 2004, at 9:59 AM, Andy Adler wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Paul Kienzle wrote:
> >  | Windows 98, 2000, XP:
> >  |      Two approaches here:  one is a cygwin package approach,
> >  |      the other a separately installed binary.   My own preference
> >  |      is for a separately installed binary which can optionally
> >  |      install into an existing cygwin environment.
> >
> >  For a separately installed binary package, the key feature is that it
> >  play nice with existing Cygwin installations.  I would prefer to not
> >  see any more angry messages from people who blame Octave for screwing
> >  up their Cywgin installation...
>
> Paul,
>
> I have never (recently) had an interest in win9x, but I recall that we
> had a problem with dynamic linking on these systems. Because of that
> there was some interest in maintaining a static only build of
> octave+octave-forge.
>
> What is the status of this? If its no longer a problem, then it
> simplifies octave packaging considerably.

The problem was that it would report an error message
for every loaded DLL every time it forked.  The solution
was to drop the fork-exec model and use the winapi
functions directly.  I believe the new octave will work
directly, but it has been a while since I rebuilt it.

Paul Kienzle
address@hidden



-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------