On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:38:17PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 1:16 PM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 05:20:31PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 8:18 PM Kevin Kofler via devel < > > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > For the record: > > > > > > > > https://www.msys2.org/docs/environments/#msvcrt-vs-ucrt states: > > > > > MSVCRT […] Works out of the box on every Microsoft Windows versions. > > > > > > > > This is not entirely true. MSVCRT.DLL was introduced in Windows 95 OSR > > 2. > > > > The original Windows 95, with or without the only service pack released > > > > for > > > > it (SP1, because OSR 2 was not released as a service pack, only as an > > "OEM > > > > service release" for new computers), shipped only the even older > > > > CRTDLL.DLL > > > > (which MinGW stopped supporting years ago) out of the box, MSVCRT.DLL > > had > > > > to > > > > be installed through a redistributable (which was included with many > > > > applications including Microsoft Office, but it was not part of the > > > > operating system). > > > > > > > > But yes, for Windows releases ≥ 95 OSR 2 and < 10 (and no, Windows > > version > > > > numbers are not anywhere near monotonic ;-) ), MSVCRT is included out > > of > > > > the > > > > box, UCRT is not. Is it really a good default to depend on a runtime > > > > library > > > > that is only included in Windows ≥ 10? > > > > > > > > > > This proposal doesn't change the default. Although we can discuss whether > > > deprecating msvcrt support in Fedora-MinGW would make sense today. > > > > There's a variety of sites claiming to have stats on different > > Windows versions. They all show Windows 10 with the majority, > > but disagree on just how much older stuff still gets used. As > > one example though, this shows Windows 7 with 12 % and > > Windows 8.1 on 3 %. That 15% is too significant to declare > > that MSVCRT is deprecated yet. > > > > > > https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide/ > > > FYI, UCRT can be installed on various Windows: > https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/update-for-universal-c-runtime-in-windows-c0514201-7fe6-95a3-b0a5-287930f3560c Can be done automatically by the application's own MSI/NSIS installer ? Requiring the users to do that separately is not desirable. > We should also look at the cost/benefit for Fedora to ship and maintain > MSVCRT environments. Or we could look at the cost/benefit of adding UCRT to Fedora, since that's the change being proposed in this thread. In this thread https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/mingw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/6G2EAKYSNWMLDBWZ2BYQS3BEIRKJ2EEG/ you're proposing that Fedora stop shipping any mingw packages at all, and just rely on MSys2 to do the packaging work. If that is the desired solution, is it actually a benefit to spend any effort adding -ucrt64 sub-RPMs to every mingw package in Fedora today ? > Release build should be tested on Windows. It is easy to build and test > natively with msys2 nowadays, or build for other targets. Why not use that? See my answers to this question elsewhere in this thread. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
