You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/4194
-- Commit Summary --
* Windows: Create 64bit installer and uninstaller
-- File Changes --
M geany.nsi.in (2) M scripts/ci_mingw64_geany.sh (4) M scripts/gtk-bundle-from-msys2.sh (8)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/4194.patch https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/4194.diff
@eht16 commented on this pull request.
@@ -306,7 +302,7 @@ full download URL as used to create this installation.
sort.exe is extracted from the ZIP archive at ${UNX_UTILS_URL}. -Sort version: ${sort_version} +Sort version: (textutils) 2.1
We hardcode the version now because we cannot execute the 32bit `sort` command anymore. I think this is ok as long as we have use the fixed version which we host ourselves (https://download.geany.org/contrib/UnxUpdates.zip).
Ideally, at some point we find a usable 64bit binary for "sort".
Seems to work alright. Also, a nice side effect is that in the previous installer all the text was very pixellated on HiDPI screens which is fixed now.
Seems to work alright. Also, a nice side effect is that in the previous installer all the text was very pixellated on HiDPI screens which is fixed now.
Sweet, didn't even know about this but cool if it gets fixed.
@giuspen when you get to creating an installer on Windows, you might try if this works at all. On the net I found various statements about the support for 64bit on NSIS releases. The version packaged in Debian works fine, I don't know if the build from MSYS2 is capable of creating 64bit binaries.
I've been thinking - wouldn't it be best to really create releases the same way as the CI builds? There doesn't seem to be any problem with the builds from the CI and these might be more tested during the development cycle. Creating releases manually once per release might cause some surprises e.g. regarding some forgotten dependencies which might get unnoticed during the release. So I'd suggest leaving the msys2 environment for our "active Windows development" only ;-)
Fine by me as well, at the end it's @giuspen decision which way is best.
I'm not familiar yet with the automated CI builds, I will go through the process in the next few days. If I understood correctly, you guys have always used that output for the windows releases so far (until Geany 2.0). If so it may be better to stick with that for now as I get to know better your build environments, in particular if you want to release Geany 2.1 soon. Note that I personally have always used MSYS2 for my windows builds but being a rolling distribution I have bumped in some regression a few times. I will investigate to understand if the CI libraries are more stable.
I'm not familiar yet with the automated CI builds, I will go through the process in the next few days.
If I understood correctly, you guys have always used that output for the windows releases so far (until Geany 2.0).
In fact, it's the opposite, releases have been made manually as described here https://wiki.geany.org/howtos/win32/msys2. But I think Enrico mentioned he has some work-in-progress patch for making releases using CI and I thought it might be a good idea because those builds possibly get more testing from users and there is less space for human error.
If so it may be better to stick with that for now as I get to know better your build environments, in particular if you want to release Geany 2.1 soon.
We have been wanting to release Geany 2.1 soon for about one year now. No stress :-)
github-comments@lists.geany.org