bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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: address@hidden

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-----






reply via email to

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