Re: [ANN] Windows MSI Installer for PUC-Lua - Proof Of Concept

[Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>]

So I'm starting to see the complications now. The 64 bit binary "just
works" on Window 10, but the 32 bit seems to still require mingw
(Error message "The program can't start because libgcc_s_dw2-1.dll is
missing from your computer"). Using various VCRedist packages
(2008,2010,2017) against joefds' binaries wasn't effective (had to
try). I could look at linking the mingw installer into my PUC-Lua
installer or ...

The other possibility is to try Visual Studio 2017. From what I can
tell the VS 2015 and 2017 release includes the C library support that
made mingw a requirement (if you trust a C# developers understanding
of C libraries!). That means I could set up a VC++ project to compile
Lua and link in the installer and add the merge module to create a
single MSI tool (I think). WIX is designed to integrate with Visual
Studio (2015 release at least) so potentially a single Solution file
could be created (and shared). If you wanted to open up Lua to Windows
developers, I think this may be an optimal route.

Well, VS Community Edition is a "free" version of a paid for product
but I think this is moving into "paid-for" land. I'll still try not to
hurt any small animals while compiling, though. If anyone has already
been down this path, I'd love to here from you.

Okay, take two...

Russ

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Enrico Colombini <erix@erix.it> wrote:
> On 14-May-17 23:05, Jonathan Goble wrote:
>>>
>>> Microsoft (exceptionally?) just released a security patch for XP
>>> against the WannaCry ransomware worm:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-security/is-the-patch-for-wannacry-available-for-xp/23be85a8-5410-4ab1-bbd9-938476d840cb
>>>
>>> ...so in a sense that's an admission that it is still a relevant
>>> platform in practical terms.
>>>
>>> -- Hisham
>>>
>> I saw that. That's highly, highly unusual, as it's the first update in
>> three years for XP. But you're right that it is basically an admission by
>> Microsoft that XP is still practically relevant despite being officially
>> dead for three years.
>
>
> There are places where XP is quite costly to replace, especially industrial
> machinery and lab instrumentation whose drivers for custom interfaces does
> not work under more recent OS versions... and the maker just says "buy the
> latest model" (x00000 euros).
>
> Of course the wisdom of using a short-life consumer operating system on
> machines built to last 30+ years is questionable.
>
> --
>   Enrico
>