Ethereal-dev: RE: [Ethereal-dev] Is it possible to build Ethereal with the MSVC ++ Toolkit 200

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Biot Olivier <Olivier.Biot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:35:18 +0200
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Andrew Hood
|
|Biot Olivier wrote:
|| Hi list,
||
|| I was happily surprised to know that Redmond decided to 
|distribute the
|| command-line "VC++ Toolkit 2003" and that its EULA does not 
|seem to be as
|| restrictive as the fully-fledged VC++ 2003.
||
|| This raises two questions to me:
||
|| 1. Are we allowed to build and "ship" Ethereal built with 
|the VC++ Toolkit
|| 2003, meaning that we are not infringing the EULA?
||
|| 2. How do we technically proceed as I understood from previous
|postings that
|| there were incompatibilities between libraries compiled with 
|different
|| versions of MSVC++?
|
|IIRC the blurb said there were only static libraries included in the
|free version. Hence there should be no library issues, but will create
|big executables.

I see. However this may be an interesting path to walk, no? If I look at the
size of the binaries and executables (I manually added NMAKE 1.5 from the
link posted previously).

$ cd /cygdrive/c/Program\ Files/Microsoft\ Visual\ C++\ Toolkit\ 2003/
$ ls -l bin/*
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-     5056 Sep 16  1994 bin/NMAKE.ERR
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-    65536 Sep 16  1994 bin/NMAKE.EXE
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-      693 Jun 20  1995 bin/README.TXT
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   933888 Feb 21  2003 bin/c1.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  2207744 Feb 21  2003 bin/c1xx.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  1867776 Feb 21  2003 bin/c2.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-    86016 Feb 21  2003 bin/cl.exe
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-      145 Feb 21  2003 bin/cl.exe.config
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   719360 May 31  2002 bin/dbghelp.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   647168 Feb 21  2003 bin/link.exe
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-      145 Feb 21  2003 bin/link.exe.config
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-    73728 Mar 18  2003 bin/msobj71.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   241664 Feb 21  2003 bin/mspdb71.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   499712 Mar 18  2003 bin/msvcp71.dll
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   348160 Feb 21  2003 bin/msvcr71.dll

$ ls -l lib/*
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   191866 Aug 10  2002 lib/kernel32.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  2707332 Feb 21  2003 lib/libc.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  3023122 Mar 18  2003 lib/libcd.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-    94208 Mar 18  2003 lib/libcd.pdb
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  2937240 Feb 21  2003 lib/libcmt.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  3604302 Feb 21  2003 lib/libcp.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  4433724 Mar 18  2003 lib/libcpd.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-   225280 Mar 18  2003 lib/libcpd.pdb
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-  3654594 Feb 21  2003 lib/libcpmt.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-    18618 Feb 20  2003 lib/mscoree.lib
-rwx------+   1 Administ mkgroup-    69512 Feb 21  2003 lib/oldnames.lib

|The incompatible library warnings usually refer to the VC7 version of
|MSVCRT.DLL, which M$ say you should distribute with your application in
|its install directory, and NOT put in the system. That seems to be the
|one that triggers all the license problems.

We can avoid this problem by statically linking the provided .lib objects,
right?

Regards,

Olivier