Re: [Audacity-devel] [Audacity-quality] 1.3.13rc3 freeze
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Gale A. <ga...@au...> - 2011-04-09 01:06:52
|
| From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> | Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:13:45 -0700 | Subject: [Audacity-quality] [Audacity-devel] 1.3.13rc3 freeze > Putting this on -quality, too, in case other QA folks have any input. > > > On 4/7/2011 6:16 PM, Gale (Audacity Team) wrote: > > Vaughan wrote: > >> I still am unclear on 4.6. Do you mean we no longer need to do *anything* > >> special > >> for these manifests? In that case the whole of step 4 should just be > >> removed. > > As I understand it, we need the "9.0.21022.8" manifest. The issue is that if > > we don't then distribute matching "9.0.21022.8" msvc*.dlls, then we lay > > ourselves open to that "error R6034" on launch, because the only way we know > > to stop that error is to distribute dll's that match the manifest. > > Do we *know* that stopped the error? If we can believe user evidence, it would seem so. The R6034 problem was reported less often during the currency of 1.3.11 than it had been in earlier Betas, which might suggest something we had done in the code was helping. However I think it might also suggest people were migrating from the Win 7 rc's (which were previously in wide distribution) to finished versions. Anyway, during the currency of 1.3.12 I had two reports of this R6034 problem, but when I asked the users to confirm they were actually using 1.3.12, it turned out they were using 1.3.10 or 1.3.11. So rather than tell them to change to compatibility mode to Vista SP2 or XP SP3 which was the advertised workaround, I asked them to replace with the older "9.0.21022.8" dll's, and they said that stopped the error. The second case of that was what prompted me to add the note 4.6 to: http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Release_Process/Win#Copy_other_necessities_to_release_build_folder > For 1.3.12 it was decided we go with *old* (pre-sp) versions of the DLL's, > even though we had no proof using the 9.0.30729.1 SP DLL's with the > hacked Manifest caused any problem, and had in fact been necessary. > That means we threw out any fixes in the VC++ sp that are in the > 9.0.30729.1 SP DLL's. I'm sure Microsoft had compelling reasons > to patch it, and we should use the latest DLL's. Was anything found out when we researched this about the MS reasons? > I don't even know where we can get those old DLL's from a reliable > source. (See below.) > > In short, I think that decision for 1.3.12 was unwise, and we should > remove points 4.5 and 4.6, and the rc3 Martyn posted is probably fine. > > So let's confirm that. Can you please, on a Windows machine that has > *no* msvc*90.dll's installed anywhere, install the Unicode rc3, and see > if it works? If you or somebody else cannot, let me know. I'm very > pressed for time, so it might be a while before I can do it. > > Later, it might even be worth trying it on a machine with no > msvc*90.dll's, with an installer that has both the 9.0.30729.1 manifest > (not hacked) and dll's. Some system patch may have fixed the problem we > encountered with 1.3.8. > My Win 7 "Starter" 32-bit netbook (a real, but not a build machine) has no msvc*90.dll's, so yes I will do those tests. > did "error R6034" on launch show up on a particular Windows version? It was almost always Win 7, AFAIK spread across all flavours of Win 7 (with the caveat about pre-releases being apparently more afflicted) . There were isolated reports on Vista and XP as well. So if Leland as he kindly offered can test, I would suggest maybe Win Vista 32-bit and Win 7 64-bit, to give us some coverage? > And btw, step 4.4 should say 4.4 says "The audacity_unicode.iss > script..." because the ANSI build is using VC8 and all this doesn't > apply, right? Yes, well spotted. None of this applies to ANSI. Gale |