MacroQuest2.exe won't recreate on compile.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:17 am

Hmm..with this latest build (12/6), the project compiles with 'build solution' quite nicely; however, the executable itself is not being created...just all the dlls.

I've checked the configuration manager and so forth; however, I cannot seem to find the actual part of the project that makes the executable itself.

Thanks

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:23 am

now that I think about this question for a few minutes, I seem to recall something in the dark recesses of my mind about the source to the executable not being released anymore. I think I just didn't pay attention to it at the time.

Is that right? If so, why did we do that again?

Dniper · Post by **Dniper** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 1:58 pm

Hmm, I still get my MacroQuest2.exe in the release folder as normal. I do get those two warnings though like others.

You compiled mq2main.dll then did a batch build? It should be in your release folder.

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 2:43 pm

MacroQuest2.exe is in the zip/cvs, you dont have the source for it. Just download the zip and compile as instructed

Jabber · Post by **Jabber** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 4:24 pm

I did notice that MQ2 does not recompile the macroquest2.exe, but it is already in the release directory. You can see this by looking at the date and time of the executable compared to the dlls.

You don't give out the source to the macroquest2.exe so that people can't remove the mq2auth requirement?

Jab.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 4:50 pm

Looks like there would be other ways to copy protect without hiding source code. I guess it doesn't really matter, but I was wanting to play around with the taskbar aspect of the application during my breaks (I'm on a college schedule, so I can't work much on this during the semesters).

I suppose one could make changes to MQ1 injector and then have devs port it. Boy, it's terrible that this project has had to come to this since people have been dicking around with it commercially.

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:08 pm

heh well if you have better ideas please tell. it was the best idea anyone came up with, without moving off of sourceforge or causing major problems, and we implemented it.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:27 pm

Yea, it's hard to think of anything else I guess. Maybe I'll ponder on that for a couple months. It's hard to think of ways to copy protect things against hackers ..lol.