On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:44:14PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >Angus> Before we release the code as 1.3.6, however, I think it would > >Angus> make sense to have some Windows guinea pigs to try it out and > >Angus> report on any obvious problems. Maybe a "call for Windows > >Angus> testers" mail to the lyx-users list? > > > >Somebody should create a windows installer from 1.3.6cvs, then. Ruurd, > >are you reading this? > > In order to open a file with LyX by clicking on the file in Windows > Explorer, I need to copy a couple of dlls to the directory containing > the LyX executable. Ie a working installation requires: > > $ make install > $ cd J:/Programs/LyX/bin > $ cp ~/qt3/lib/qt-mt3.dll . > $ cp J:/mingw/bin/mingwm10.dll . > > Perhaps a clever installer would ask whether Qt and MinGW were present > already and would register their location in the registry? Ie, it > wouldn't install qt-mt3.dll or mingwm10.dll if they could be found > elsewhere.
Common Windows practice seems not to re-use existing dlls but bundle everything to the application. The system's behaviour to search for dependend dlls first in the same directory as the binary even yields semi-predictable results when using this method. > It would also need to tie the .lyx file extension to the LyX binary. > > Would it really need to do anythiing else? We'd probably need to unconditionally create desktop shortcuts and start menu entries as well as a couple of hundreds unused registry entries that are left there after an uninstall. And maybe stomp on the feet of another app or two. Oh, and of course a license dialog asking the user to sell his mother to some hitherto unkown religious sect. We are aiming for the perfect Windows experience after all, aren't we? Andre'
