reference problem of manifest.(win32.mak of libpq.dll)

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

Hi Magnus, and Dave.

It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of
VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by
the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal.

Please take this into consideration.

+ !IF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" != "6.00.9782.0"

I don't think that's safe. We need to do a range check. Perhaps check if
vesion is >= 7.0 or something?

There can be other 6.00.<something> versions, no? Say with different
servicepacks or something?

//Magnus

Hi.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

Hi Magnus, and Dave.

It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of
VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by
the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal.

Please take this into consideration.

+ !IF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" != "6.00.9782.0"

I don't think that's safe. We need to do a range check. Perhaps check if
vesion is >= 7.0 or something?

There can be other 6.00.<something> versions, no? Say with different
servicepacks or something?

Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a regrettable
thing, but it causes an error to it....:-(
So, except all thought that it was good.

Regards,
Hiroshi Saito

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:52:15PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

Hi.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:01:20PM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

Hi Magnus, and Dave.

It seems that it is different in nmake although the initial value of
VisualStudio is embedding. Then, It sees a reference problem by
the dll independent. Therefore, embedding considers like an ideal.

Please take this into consideration.

+ !IF "$(_NMAKE_VER)" != "6.00.9782.0"

I don't think that's safe. We need to do a range check. Perhaps check if
vesion is >= 7.0 or something?

There can be other 6.00.<something> versions, no? Say with different
servicepacks or something?

Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a
regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-(
So, except all thought that it was good.

Hmm. Crap.
Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or
environment variable only present in newer versions or something?

/Magnus

From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>

Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a
regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-(
So, except all thought that it was good.

Hmm. Crap.
Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or
environment variable only present in newer versions or something?

I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced
officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory.

Regards,
Hiroshi Saito

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:15:53AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>

Condition understanding of '>=' is not made as for namke of VC6 to a
regrettable thing, but it causes an error to it....:-(
So, except all thought that it was good.

Hmm. Crap.
Perhaps there's something else we can check on? Like a feature or
environment variable only present in newer versions or something?

I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced
officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory.

Ah, good point, I forgot about that.

But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*?

//Magnus

From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>

I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced
officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory.

Ah, good point, I forgot about that.

But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*?

It is because it is saved by it although VC6 is private. probably, present all will
be possible by it. I feel that it is better than exclusion for it.

Regards,
Hiroshi Saito

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:29:53AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

From: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>

I don't think of a good idea. However, since our document has announced
officially, saying >=VC7.1. Therefore, I think that it is satisfactory.

Ah, good point, I forgot about that.

But - if we do that, why do we need that IF check *at all*?

It is because it is saved by it although VC6 is private. probably, present
all will be possible by it. I feel that it is better than exclusion for it.

Ok. Applied.

//Magnus