[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question: Windows Build - feature branch
From: |
Derek Robert Price |
Subject: |
Re: Question: Windows Build - feature branch |
Date: |
Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:20:50 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Conrad T. Pino wrote:
>>>>>Is adding a complete set distinctly named VC 6.0 build files and
>>>>>keeping VC 5.0 files in a semi-maintained state an option?
>>
>>I suppose I wouldn't really have any objection to this if it appears
>>most convenient to the folks who have to use the files.
>
>
>I asked you first since you're a gatekeeper. I plan to email Dennis
>Jones to develop a consensus for consideration.
>
>Double checking, who else beyond the lists should be solicited?
No one I know of. You can check the info-cvs archives for the last time
I polled for objections to updating to MSVC++ 6.0. I think I just
turned up Dennis, but that doesn't mean that others with an interest
didn't just let Dennis handle the matter. I can't recall exectly what
happened. I suggest you have this discussion on info-cvs if you get
Dennis to agree to anything but think others might be affected.
As for soliciting people beyond the list, I usually figure that if
somebody doesn't have enough interest in CVS development to follow
info-cvs &/or bug-cvs and respond to such queries, then their opinion
doesn't matter. At least, not until they send the post-release bug
report. :)
>>>>I haven't tried the DJGPP version of GCC yet. It is possible that it
>>>>doesn't suffer from the same limitations as Cygwin. If you have time to
>>>>research that and would like to report back, I would like to hear.
>>>
>>>DJGPP http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ looks problematic since it's
target OS
>>>is DOS, MS-DOS and compatibles. The current Windows build targets
the Win32
>>>API and DJGPP targets the DOS API. I'm concerned we lose too munch
function
>>>with the DOS API.
>>
>>Windows still has support for DOS, and I'm fairly certain that the
>>command line version of CVS won't be making much use of Windows-specific
>>calls. Some of the networking stuff might be tricky, but I'll be
>>suprised if that won't build just from what I heard when I used to lurk
>>on the Autoconf lists.
>
>
>Yes, Windows NT supports the DOS API but it still imposes constraints.
>The 8.3 size limit and upper case only for file names being the worst.
>
>I assume the directory name "windows-NT" implies a minimum API level
>which has to be the Win32 API. The code in "windows-NT" seems to rely
Okay. I see. I didn't realize how far back DJGPP was going. What you
say makes sense.
Derek
- --
*8^)
Email: derek@ximbiot.com
Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAdHCyLD1OTBfyMaQRAsxXAKCnB7viiXEvcsLZQXQVgBTiW6NgrwCg/4xm
WUlEcddaVm7ln6T5S26Qeqk=
=g0MN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----