[lokisetup] Re: win32 port
megastep at megastep.org
Sat Nov 23 17:08:22 EST 2002
Le sam 23/11/2002 à 05:50, Timothee Besset a écrit :
> How bad do you want the win32 port? Having a win32 version sounds like an
> awful lot of work and constraints. Some parts may be common, but in the
> end the shells scripts that work in the linux/bsd/unix world won't work
> for the win32 version of your setup etc. The UI probably can't be ncurses
> or gtk, native .. or at best wxWindows?
I didn't say a Win32 port should be a priority at all - it probably
wouldn't really be part of the first 2.0 release anyway.
I am just saying that we should keep such things in mind if we want to
keep things truly portable, i.e. privilege coding behaviors that will
not hinder further ports to widely different OSes.
The way I see it, besides the required accomodations through the code,
the Win32 port would mainly be a new win32_ui.c module or something of
the sort, for a native Windows GUI. Of course other Unix-centric modules
wouldn't be compiled in (except maybe for the console UI).
> I think throwing in a proprietary script language to perform common
> operations would quickly be required for win32 operation, this pushes
> even more things on the TODO list.
For one thing, I think we're going to try to push to restructure the XML
configuration so that calls to extern shell scripts can be reduced to a
minimum. For the rest, we should be able to have platform-specific
scripts at first, and we may be able to integrate another more generic
scripting language with setup.
> If you look at the GtkRadiant setup on win32, we are doing some freaky
> stuff to the Install Shield setups, basically we work from templates and
> generate setups on demand (with a selection of the game packs to include).
> Building something that could actually compete with the existing setup
> solutions on win32 would be an enormous work. And I don't think it should
> be in the objectives.
I don't think we are aiming at competing with other commercial
installers, mostly to have a solution that we can easily use for
> On the other hand, the idea of a portable installer/update system .. and a
> custom GUI code that works on all platforms (read 'Doom-engine setup UI')
> IS sexy.
Yeah :-). Actually now I'm thinking that the GUI modules should be
separated from the core loki_setup code, so that they may be reused by
other loki_* tools like loki_update and the like... Like move all of
that to setupdb ?
Sr. Software Engineer
More information about the Lokisetup