Claudio Natoli wrote:
> > Seems inconsistent to me.
>
> There is no inconsistency, as the two requirements are aimed at very
> different "issues". It was just the case that one (win32 versioning) was
> inadvertently a potential (and rejected) solution to the other (auto version
> check).
>
> The question now is simply whether or not this versioning cruft justifies
> its existence, presumably for facilitating packaging and installation of
> binaries (particularly those that cannot report their version readily, such
> as DLLs). I personally certainly have no use for it, and I don't see us
> getting the "Designed for Microsoft Windows" tick any time soon, but I have
> no doubt that Magnus, in working on the win32 installer, is perhaps seeing
> the need in an entirely different light.
"Designed for Microsoft Windows" :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
