Обсуждение: reference problem of manifest.(win32.mak of libpq.dll)
Hi Magnus, and Dave. It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal. Please take this into consideration. Regards, Hiroshi Saito
Вложения
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi Magnus, and Dave. > > It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of > VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by > the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal. > > Please take this into consideration. + !IF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" != "6.00.9782.0" I don't think that's safe. We need to do a range check. Perhaps check if vesion is >= 7.0 or something? There can be other 6.00.<something> versions, no? Say with different servicepacks or something? //Magnus
Hi. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: >> Hi Magnus, and Dave. >> >> It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of >> VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by >> the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal. >> >> Please take this into consideration. > > + !IF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" != "6.00.9782.0" > > I don't think that's safe. We need to do a range check. Perhaps check if > vesion is >= 7.0 or something? > > There can be other 6.00.<something> versions, no? Say with different > servicepacks or something? Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-( So, except all thought that it was good. Regards, Hiroshi Saito
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:52:15PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > Hi. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> > > > >On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > >>Hi Magnus, and Dave. > >> > >>It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of > >>VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by > >>the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal. > >> > >>Please take this into consideration. > > > >+ !IF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" != "6.00.9782.0" > > > >I don't think that's safe. We need to do a range check. Perhaps check if > >vesion is >= 7.0 or something? > > > >There can be other 6.00.<something> versions, no? Say with different > >servicepacks or something? > > Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a > regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-( > So, except all thought that it was good. Hmm. Crap. Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or environment variable only present in newer versions or something? /Magnus
From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> >> Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a >> regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-( >> So, except all thought that it was good. > > Hmm. Crap. > Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or > environment variable only present in newer versions or something? I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory. Regards, Hiroshi Saito
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:15:53AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> > > >>Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a > >>regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-( > >>So, except all thought that it was good. > > > >Hmm. Crap. > >Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or > >environment variable only present in newer versions or something? > > I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced > officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory. Ah, good point, I forgot about that. But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*? //Magnus
From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> >> I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced >> officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory. > > Ah, good point, I forgot about that. > > But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*? It is because it is saved by it although VC6 is private. probably, present all will be possible by it. I feel that it is better than exclusion for it. Regards, Hiroshi Saito
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:29:53AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote: > From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> > > >>I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced > >>officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory. > > > >Ah, good point, I forgot about that. > > > >But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*? > > It is because it is saved by it although VC6 is private. probably, present > all will be possible by it. I feel that it is better than exclusion for it. Ok. Applied. //Magnus