Re: Pre-compiled octave for Windows

[Michael Goffioul]

David Bateman a écrit :
> Michael Goffioul wrote:
>   
> Scripts I don't care much about as they are small. But cruft.dll,
> octave.dll etc are rather large and so I don't see a reason to keep both
> about. I think you can dump one of each the three main dll. Also in the
> bin/ dir there is an octinterp.dll whereas there is a different one in
> the lib dir. One or the other should be distributed..
>   

There is only one version of the DLL's, isn't it? Concerning 
octinterp.dll in bin/ dir and a different
one in lib/ dir, I don't understand what you mean. The .lib and .dll 
files are coupled: the .lib file
defines the symbols that are found in the .dll and is used at link time. 
So you need both of them
(actually, the .lib files are only installed if you selected the 
"Development" package in the installer).

> > I'm not an expert license. All GnuWin32 packages are done in the same
> > way, so I followed
> > the same process. I'll see if I can remove the "I Accept" step.
> >     
>
> Its a quibble on my part in that I disagree with gnuwin32 also doing
> this, and it'll change user perspective of the GPL in that it is
> presented as a user license. The GPL only comes into play when you start
> trying to give the code to someone else...
>   

Maybe it's simply due to NSIS, which forces you to explicitely accept 
the license
when you define one in the NSI script (I didn't check yet). What is better:
not showing any license page at installation, or showing a license when 
an accept button,
even it doesn't really make sense?

Michael.