Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-24 Thread Joost Verburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I understand you correctly, the actual LyX binary is lyxc.exe (why the 'c'?)? Yes. The 'c' is because it shows a console window :) You have instead written a separate application, lyx.exe, that prepares the environment and then launches lyxc.exe. Correct? Indeed.

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-24 Thread christian . ridderstrom
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Joost Verburg wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joost, what are launcher.nsi and pdfview.nsi? (I know they're compiled by lyx.nsi, but I'm not sure of their purposes) I've printed the source code of these installers but not looked at it yet. Would you mind giving me a few

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-23 Thread Bo Peng
Btw, I think you've in general forgotten about launcher.nsi and pdfview.nsi. (Not that I know how they are to be counted). Yeap, I simply forgot, so all numbers should be wrong. :-) Bo

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-23 Thread Joost Verburg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joost, what are launcher.nsi and pdfview.nsi? (I know they're compiled by lyx.nsi, but I'm not sure of their purposes) launcher.nsi creates lyx.exe, which is an application that setups the environment variables, captures the command line output and runs LyX itself (ly

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-23 Thread christian . ridderstrom
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Bo Peng wrote: Dear all, I had a quick scan of the two installer code bases and was quite surprised about the complexity of the installers, and how different the two installers are. Because I could not understand most of the code, I did some low-tech 'cat XXX | grep YYY

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-23 Thread christian . ridderstrom
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Angus Leeming wrote: Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I had a quick scan of the two installer code bases and was quite surprised about the complexity of the installers if and endif (interesting) J: 89 U: 269 If memory serves, 'if' and 'endif' aren't native NSIS inst

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-22 Thread Angus Leeming
Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I had a quick scan of the two installer code bases and was quite > surprised about the complexity of the installers > if and endif (interesting) > J: 89 > U: 269 If memory serves, 'if' and 'endif' aren't native NSIS instructions. Rather, these things are use

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-22 Thread christian . ridderstrom
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Bo Peng wrote: Size: .nsh and .nsi only, no language files. J: 19 files 2419 lines, 511 blank, 119 comments (; only) U: 12 files 3570 lines, 739 blank, 294 comments (; only) Correction: 226, 555 comment lines respectively. (I only counted '^;', '^\s*;' is used now.) D

Re: Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-21 Thread Bo Peng
Size: .nsh and .nsi only, no language files. J: 19 files 2419 lines, 511 blank, 119 comments (; only) U: 12 files 3570 lines, 739 blank, 294 comments (; only) Correction: 226, 555 comment lines respectively. (I only counted '^;', '^\s*;' is used now.) Bo

Low-tech comparisons between two installer code bases.

2007-02-21 Thread Bo Peng
Dear all, I had a quick scan of the two installer code bases and was quite surprised about the complexity of the installers, and how different the two installers are. Because I could not understand most of the code, I did some low-tech 'cat XXX | grep YYY | wc -l' comparisons of the two installer