[Top][All Lists]

[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: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:41:40 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1

Hash: SHA1

This discussion is more appropriate for bug-cvs.  I've cc'd it but left
info-cvs in this round so that interested parties can follow the thread
to the new list.  Please remove info-cvs from the CC list in replies.

Conrad T. Pino wrote:

>I'm surprised by, "As long as no one else takes responsibility for the
>build files..." and concerned that responsibility for the Windows build
>to you since time spent on build mechanics is time lost from usable
>Keep me in mind if there's something you can delegate keeping in mind
I've a lot
>left to learn.

Thanks for the cote of ocnfidence.  As for delegation, it sounds like
you're off to a good start.

>I assume the Windows CVS binary supplied at cvshome.org is widely used
as the
>preferred binary command line version and perhaps underneath WinCVS
also but
>I'd like to hear your perspective first before acting.

WinCVS has started defaulting to using CVSNT, though I think it is still
possible to plug in our CVS.  I'd really like to see CVSNT merge with
CVS again since both projects have lots of good work being done on
them.  If you run out of Windows tasks, porting CVSNT features back to
CVS one at a time until the code bases match would be useful work.

>We're in a mixed Visual C++ (VC) 5.0 & 6.0 mode because supporting 5.0
is still
>the project goal but the current contributors have limited access to VC
>I'm aware of only you, Dennis Jones and I are actively dabbling with
the Windows
>Can you say who the other active stake holders in the Windows build
process are?
>Is dropping support for VC 5.0 in favor of VC 6.0 an option?

I think Dennis objected to that.  As long as someone else is
regenerating the build files when necessary, I don't mind checking them in.

>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?
>Relying on a commercial compiler that isn't compatible with the *nix
build process
>strikes me at odds with most open source practice.  I'm concerned that
>distinct builds is seems problematic in a resource constrained project.
>What is the current level of support for building CVS with gcc on Windows?

It can be done with Cygwin, but the executable built is only useful from
the Cygwin Bash shell, as far as I can tell.  I think I jumped through
some hoops once to enable the Cygwin binary to find the Cygwin DLL, but
we still couldn't ship the binary since users would need to install
Cygwin to use CVS.

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.

>Is dropping VC support in favor of gcc on Windows an option?

Not unless we can build a binary that works without the build
envirionment installed, I think.  It might be interesting to look into
what CVSNT is doing in this area too since they have a more
Windows-centric focus.


- --

Email: derek@ximbiot.com

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Netscape - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]