[Box Backup] Long path names, open files, etc
Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:58:22 +0200
On 31/3/09 13:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> It's interesting to know that they can build with mingw, although the
> Makefile doesn't make it clear what setup they needed to do to make this
> possible, e.g. copying of header files, conversion of libraries, etc. I
> also have to be careful not to copy their code as it is GPL licensed and
> Box Backup is not.
OK. Offlist we have had some additional information interchange.
>> As an alternative (if this is interesting to you) I am certain that
>> there is enough interest on this list to give you a valid XP/Vista
>> license if this is holding back development.
> An XP license would definitely be a great help in that regard.
OK, I will start a call to get you an XP license (-:
> One problem is that other people's ability to make use of the code, e.g.
> your own, could be severely hampered by integration of VSS, by it
> becoming much harder to build with VSS.
Well, seeing that building is not that simple to start with (and I have
spend a couple of hours on this topic), I believe that the usefulness of
VSS (and the free availability of the SDK) outweigh the inconveniences.
In addition, perhaps VSS support could be an option that you can decide
to build with or not, eliminating a strong dependency alltogether.
> The other is that until we work out how to compile with VSS on MinGW, I
> can only use Visual Studio, and I am not allowed to distribute the
> runtime needed to run Box Backup compiled with Visual Studio free
> edition, and I don't have a paid license. Nor do I particularly wish to
> switch development to Visual Studio. See mailing list archives passim ad
> infinitum for more info.
I understand that. However, over in the Boxi thread I already mentioned
that it appears that MSVC++ is a necessity for building wxWidgets the
way that Boxi needs it (wxStackwalker!). I would love to avoid MSVC++ as
much as you do.
>> In addition, only the developers have to download the SDK in order to be
>> able to compile Box, running Box with VSS support only relies on system
>> libraries that come by default with XP, Vista and 2003: no download of
>> SDK required for the users!
> Yes, but developers are as important as users in my view, and just as
> worth supporting and not impeding.
Absolutely, see my comment about making VSS an option and not a
requirement. Without VSS, the current functionality is maintained.
> Yes, I'd definitely agree that using the NotifyScript is the best
> short-term solution, and if the script needs improvement then I fully
> support that.
Great, I will have a look at the different version. I understand that
the licensing issues apply here as well.