Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

thank you for your explanation, Alex, well, im both a Linux and Windows
user, but i didnt know this.

Its just i have got several apps that cannot work because of the issue i
said above....

But, anywan, im ok now, and thank you so much

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)videotron.ca> wrote:

>   Again all of this is irrelevant: since I think you are
> a Linux user, I can
>  understand why you are confused.
>
>  On Windows, all HTTP communication is done by WinHTTP and/or WinINET,
>  nobody writes their own custom socket code.
>
>  WinHTTP/WinINET control the proxy settings for the machine. In fact, if you
>  use Google Chrome on Windows (or Safari) and go to the proxy/connection
>  settings, you will see "IE's" proxy connection dialog -- because these
>  settings/dialog are owned by the OS Library, not the individual
>  applications.
>
>  Therefore, the installer will use 100% the same settings as the web
>  browser, including the same protocol.
>
>  So, as I stated, if the browser can download foo.exe, so will the online
>  installer.
>
>  --
>  Best regards,
>  Alex Ionescu
>
>  On 2011-06-03, at 1:50 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote:
>
> >   whatever you use for downloading the installer
> > has to be configured to 
>  connect throught the proxy and also to use its dns services
> for host name
>  resolving. if the installer itself isn't aware of the need for proxy server
>  (or is not able to connect through socks or whatever the proxy uses) it
>  won't be usually able to resolve the hostname it's trying to connect to
>  (depends on the exact network configuration). also the default route to the
>  internet would be missing or direct outgoing connections would be blocked
>  (which they usually are otherwise you wouldn't be forced to use the proxy
>  server in the first place) so the traffic generated by the installer
>  wouldn't have any means to reach its destination.
> >  
> >  I didn't want to derail the discussion and I apologize for that. I'll 
>  shut
> up next time.
> >  
> >  Kamil
> >
> >  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" <ionucu(a)videotron.ca>
> >  To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
> >  Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:03 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
> >
> >
> > > Since online installers use HTTP, and the user got the installer off 
>  HTTP,
> what would a proxy server change?
> >  >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alex Ionescu
> > >
> > > On 2011-06-03, at 12:33 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote:
> > >
> > >> I didn't want to spam this discussion but I have to.. What every other 
> software company also does is refusing to believe someone might be behind a
>  proxy server. If you go this way, please make sure the installer doesn't
>  need a direct connection. Also online installers are generally a major pain
>  in the ass if you don't provide an offline installer too.
> >  >>
> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Ionescu
> > >> To: ReactOS Development List
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:56 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Why separate installers for x64/ARM?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Just do what every software company this side of the century does: a 
>  400kb
> installer which lets you select the packages you want, and downloads
>  them.
> >  >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Best regards,
> > >> Alex Ionescu
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2011-06-03, at 11:38 AM, Zachary Gorden wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Spoke with Amine and Daniel.  I've agreed to the lesser evil of 
> bundling the FULL cmake.  Reasons are if we want the BE to be flexible
>  enough to be used for more than just building ROS, we can't gimp cmake with
>  the belief that no one will need the things we didn't include.  This is
>  again on Windows.  I remain uninvolved with decisions about the Linux BE.
> >  >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> 
> wrote:
> >  >>
> > >> Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer(a)web.de> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> My vote on this:
> > >> CMake: bundle it, optional on installation
> > >> x64/arm: create individual installers
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> * CMake: bundle it, go for the (minimal) version without an installer. 
> It's nothing "exotic" to install after all, just put it together with the
>  other utilities in RosBE.
> >  >>
> > >> * x64/arm: If build tool sizes are staying like this, create individual 
> installers. Just for testing, I'll try an x86/x64 multilib build of Binutils
>  and GCC though, would be nice to know how much smaller it is compared to
>  separate x86 and x64 compilers.
> > > >  
> > > >  So in general, I agree with Timo :-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  - Colin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > >  _______________________________________________
> > > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> > >
> > >  _______________________________________________
> > >  Ros-dev mailing list
> > >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>