Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[doc] build: Add tip for 32-bit installer #1097

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

[doc] build: Add tip for 32-bit installer #1097

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

JJRcop
Copy link
Collaborator

@JJRcop JJRcop commented Nov 2, 2023 •
edited
Loading

This may help people who really need a 32-bit installer so they can make one for themselves.

There is an argument to be made that those who really need this can find it by reading the installer.nsi file and the makensis man page, and that may act as a desirable filter; but I figure we are giving them build instructions that they are already following against our warnings, so might as well give them a hand.

Screenshot_20231102_171440

@gnif
Copy link
Owner

gnif commented Nov 2, 2023

I don't agree with the rationale here:

  1. They should not be building a 32 bit version of LG, as such there is no reason to make a 32-bit installer. This makes it seem like it's acceptable to do so.
  2. If people are having trouble using this, they should not be using it. Third party builds will be missing the pdb and ivshmem driver. Debugging issues will be more difficult also as people may start distributing the version they "built".

@JJRcop
Copy link
Collaborator Author

JJRcop commented Nov 2, 2023

  1. They should not be building a 32 bit version of LG, as such there is no reason to make a 32-bit installer. This makes it seem like it's acceptable to do so.

Good point, this is definitely reason enough to not merge.

  1. If people are having trouble using this, they should not be using it. Third party builds will be missing the pdb and ivshmem driver. Debugging issues will be more difficult also as people may start distributing the version they "built".

I see the concern about people distributing what they built. The instructions we have there already are definitely enough and people who would follow them are hopefully experienced enough to deal with build options like this that we don't intend for people to use. I agree with your points and will close this PR.

@JJRcop JJRcop closed this Nov 2, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@JJRcop @gnif