RE: autoconf in pure MSVC environment?

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> you might need 3 #ifdefs.  In fact, my idea about using Autoconf is to
> determine if the dependencies are so minor that they *can* in fact be
> dealt with trivially.

Most package configure scripts only test for functions which are not 
reliably available across Unix systems.  They assume that baseline 
Unix/POSIX functionality exists.  This means that an inspection of an 
existing configure script will not indicate how difficult the 
associated package will be to port to Windows.

> developers do not want it.  Cygwin / Mingw exist principally for the
> benefit of UNIXen who do not wish Windows to be Windows.  They are
> Windows avoidance solutions, not Windows support solutions.

In this context it is not clear what "Windows" is.  MinGW clearly 
targets native Windows, but its execution environment is based on Unix 
tools/concepts.  Otherwise there are various Windows IDE-based 
development environments (Visual Studio, Borland Code Builder, etc.) 
which of course are all quite different and very proprietary.  In 
fact, the "project" files across various Microsoft Visual Studio 
releases are all quite different.

> To get real duplicability of build environment, and real vetting by a
> lot of Windows developers, code has to be built natively under MSVC.

What version of MSVC? 6.0 != 7.0 != 7.1

MSVC is like a bank account which does not allow withdrawals.  Source 
code goes in, but it never comes back out.  The assured obsolecense of 
the current version ensures a non-backward-compatable "upgrade" in the 
future.  These problems are all due to the nature of the IDE.  MSVC is 
like heroin for the Windows software developer.

> From this standpoint, a Windows build scheme based on the GNU Auto* 
tools is much more stable and not subject to "upgrade hell" since it 
depends on tools which have had their interfaces defined for the past 
25 years.

> That's not an absolute, but it is the correct "in practice" operative
> statement most of the time.  My rule of thumb is if a project is Cygwin
> / Mingw, they aren't serious about Windows support.  Part of this is
> cultural, not just technical: they're UNIXen and Windows is viewed as a
> second class citizen.

Windows isn't a second class citizen? ;-)

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen