Re: New Xconq Windows Executable

[Hans Ronne <hronne@telia.com>]

>If we want to release our own Tcl/Tk bundle, I really only think a
>few things would be necessary:
>(1) The Tcl and Tk DLL's.
>(2) The Tcl scripts for Tk et al.
>(3) A .reg file with the appropriate registry entries. (Harcoded
>paths will have to be assumed, I think. Probably something like
>"C:\Program Files\Xconq\ASTcl".)
>(4) A simple install.bat to create the official Xconq install
>directory and populate it.
>
>Things could be even smoother and more dynamic if we can find a
>free installer program. I haven't checked the licensing of things
>like InstallShield (Lite?).
>But maybe it is not worth the effort....

Well, I would put it like this: why do the job when AS has already done it
for us. Sure, we might be able to prune down tcltk to a lot less than the
80 MB in the AS package, and then bundle it with Xconq. However, consider
what happens if somebody installs a partial tcltk that comes with Xconq and
then finds out he/she needs the full install for some other program. If
there is one thing that can mess upp a system it is installing a full
version of something on top of a partial version or vice versa. I fear that
xconq would be blamed in the end and get a bad rep.

I am not dogmatic about this, however. If it turns out that all you need is
the DLLs and a few script files, it might be worthwhile. We already
included BWidget in Xconq. I haven't checked how many of the tcltk script
files that are really needed to run Xconq. Everything should be installed
in the Xconq directory in that case, in order not to mess up things for
other programs.

>I have not given SDL serious consideration. Are there any
>bundling issues with that?

Not that I am aware of. SDL is under LGPL. In any case, I have been
building the DLLs myself from the SDL sources, since the DLLs from the
official distribution were built with Visual C++ and therefore are
incompatible with apps built by CodeWarrior (which I am using).

Hans