From: Braden M. <br...@en...> - 2003-10-21 00:34:38
|
Quoting Nigel Stewart and Fiona Smith <ni...@ni...>: > > >>Might as well go back to staticly linking everything :-( > > I'd expect that to be what most Win32 glut apps do now. Is it not? > > With the likelyhood of the system GLUT32.DLL being either > FreeGLUT or GLUT, I will be statically linking as a > defensive measure... :-) The larger point is that the most likely scenario is that there is *no* system glut32.dll. > I've found Windows to be particularly poor at > managing updates to system shared libraries - > it's basically up to each installer if it > would like to overwrite things in the system > directory. Yes; it's a setup that's disturbingly vulnerable to poorly-written installers. Like most autotools packages that can be compiled for non-Cygwin Windows, I don't think freeglut's build system makes any attempt to establish deployment policy for that platform. Given the fragility of the deployment situation there, I think freeglut should continue not to address this problem. > It's reasonably common for GLUT32.DLL to land in > the system directory on Windows machines, messing > with that doesn't seem constructive to me. While "glut32.dll" in some arbitrary user's C:\Windows\System32 directory *might* be what you need, I see no way to guarantee that it *is*. I'd imagine it's a bad idea in any event to rely on a copy of this DLL in the system library directory. -- Braden McDaniel e-mail: <br...@en...> <http://endoframe.com> Jabber: <br...@ja...> |