[opensource-dev] Is 'STANDALONE' confusing?

Boroondas Gupte sllists at boroon.dasgupta.ch
Wed Feb 23 07:10:11 PST 2011

On 02/23/2011 10:57 AM, leliel wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)
> <oz at lindenlab.com> wrote:
>> The real distinction, I think, is whether or not you are using
>> _installed_ libraries.  Normally, the viewer build has only minimal
>> reliance on the libs that are installed on the system itself
> In other words the viewer is normally built as a standalone
> application, i.e. the STANDALONE option does the exact opposite of
> what you'd expect given the definition of the word. So why not just
> invert the meaning of STANDALONE?
I guess (and that's really just a guess) today's "STANDALONE" refers to
not relying on network connectivity at /build/ time. Whether the shipped
application package is self-contained (i.e. has minimal reliance on
libraries installed on the end user's system) depends mainly on what
libraries get packaged with it (or linked statically, so that they're
included anyway).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20110223/fce4a003/attachment.htm 

More information about the opensource-dev mailing list