On 25/07/2020 14:21, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 15:40:02 +0300 >> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz****@gnu*****> >> >> So you are saying that an "empty" prefix such as "C:/" is not >> considered as "common" by the code that examines "relocatability"? > > Ignore me, the real problem is C:/MinGW prefix for MinGW vs just C:/ > for Python. Got it. Exactly. A GDB which has been configured for a default prefix of C:/MinGW will not consider Python, installed under C:/Python*, as a candidate for relocation along with itself. However, I don't think that's really a problem — just a difference in installation policy between two independent projects. On the basis that a majority of users will simply adopt the default installation paths recommended by the respective distributors; i.e. C:/MinGW for packages originating from MinGW.org, and C:/Python* for those originating from Python.org. Of course, users are free to relocate either, or both; relocated MinGW-GDB should still work with Python left at C:/Python*; if Python is relocated, the user will likely need to define PYTHONPATH, in the environment. OTOH, you prefer a policy which places all packages under the common d:/usr prefix. That's a legitimate choice, but not necessarily a better one; I would suggest that either of these choices is equally valid. -- Regards, Keith. Public key available from keys.gnupg.net Key fingerprint: C19E C018 1547 DE50 E1D4 8F53 C0AD 36C6 347E 5A3F -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.osdn.me/mailman/archives/mingw-users/attachments/20200725/a2a5a9ac/attachment-0001.sig>
Fork