[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Question: Windows Build - feature branch

From: Conrad T. Pino
Subject: RE: Question: Windows Build - feature branch
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 11:48:35 -0700

Hi Derek,

> From: Derek Robert Price [mailto:address@hidden

> >May I assume this choice is deliberate and won't change soon?
> Well, yes and no.  The decision to stick with 5.0 hasn't really changed,
> but for practical reasons, when it becomes necessary to update the build
> files, I use 6.0 (I only have MSVC++ 6.0).  As long as no one else takes
> responsibility for the Windows build files, this is probably the way it
> will stay.  When I recently updated the build files, Dennis Jones
> re-regenerated the *.mak files with 5.0.  If he keeps this up, then I
> have no problem checking the 5.0 files in.
I'm surprised by, "As long as no one else takes responsibility for the Windows
build files..." and concerned that responsibility for the Windows build devolved
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.

I assume the Windows CVS binary supplied at 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.
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?

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 
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?

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


reply via email to

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