[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?
From: |
Benjamin Riefenstahl |
Subject: |
Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls? |
Date: |
Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:28:14 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Jason,
Jason Rumney <address@hidden> writes:
> I deliberately avoided making any binary distributed by FSF
> dependant on those libraries to avoid the need to deal with these
> legal issues, but I tried to do so in a way that does not cripple
> the binary we distribute if the user choses to download those DLLs
> separately from some other source.
Would it be hard to have customizable variables for the DLL names?
Than Mike could just set them to the version that works by using a
complete path name. Emacs could set the default by searching in $PATH
(as I understand the code internally does it now) and nil could mean,
that the user doesn't want the feature at all.
so long, benny
- How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Robin Hu, 2003/06/04
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Jason Rumney, 2003/06/05
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Robin Hu, 2003/06/05
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Jason Rumney, 2003/06/05
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Juanma Barranquero, 2003/06/05
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Jason Rumney, 2003/06/05
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Juanma Barranquero, 2003/06/05
- Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, Juanma Barranquero, 2003/06/05
Re: How about using static link instead of dynamic loaded dlls?, David Masterson, 2003/06/05