What about the offering[1] from Pierre (MS guy) to write a script that generates the mak files? Just in case you don't want to do it yourself ;) Why not taking advantage of that?
Greetz Mario [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@httpd.apache.org/msg56189.html On 2 April 2013 06:25, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:41:16 -0700 > Gregg Smith <g...@gknw.net> wrote: > > > On 3/30/2013 11:14 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Gregg Smith <g...@gknw.net > > > <mailto:g...@gknw.net>> wrote: > > > > > > On 3/30/2013 11:01 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > > > > To state the obvious, I'm probably doing something stupid. > > > > > > I am using Visual Studio 2010 + SP1 (to get around an > > > incremental linking bug). > > > > > > I have a directory with: > > > > > > apr-1.4.x as apr > > > apr-util-1.5.x as apr-util > > > apr-iconv-1.1.x as apr-iconv > > > > > > Within apr-util I try > > > > > > l>nmake -f Makefile.win PREFIX=c:\apr1x USEMAK=1 ARCH="Win32 > > > Debug" buildall checkall > > > > > > This fails with > > > > > > cd ..\apr-iconv > > > "c:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > > > 10.0\VC\BIN\nmake.exe" - > > > nologo -f apriconv.mak CFG="apriconv - Win32 Debug" > > > RECURSE=0 NMAKE : fatal error U1052: file 'apriconv.mak' not found > > > Stop. > > > > > > Sure enough, there is no apriconv.mak there. > > > > > > Am I supposed to do something first to generate them, > > > before I can use the apr-util Makefile.win? > > > > > > > > > Unless you have VC6, use apr-iconv-1.2.1-win32-src-r2.zip or > > > steal the .mak/.dep files from it. > > > http://apr.apache.org/download.cgi > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll use that. > > > > > > Is there a reason we shouldn't commit the build support to svn? > > > (Is there something unique about that build support that warrants > > > leaving it uncommitted?) > > > > Probably not and I see they're in APR-Iconv/trunk which looks like > > where the 1.2.1 tag came from. Why they're not included in tag I can > > only guess. However, we do not want them landing in the Unix tarballs > > as that's the way it's been for a long time. I believe Bill for the > > longest time has been generating these win32 source packages on the > > side. > > Well, we haven't generated such a package - in the longest time ;-P > > Yes, they aught to land in the tarball, but I've seen nothing that > suggests that there are enough reviewers to get 3 votes for any > incremental apr-iconv release, and the upstream and current activity > are both long dead. I've personally been using the last LGPL licensed > version of iconv (1.11) for a very long time. My own desire would be > to have some icu or other basis for handling xlate, but MS has never > seen any use to streaming codepage conversion, so there are no usable > native implementations in the base OS. > > IIRC Mladen had worked on some interesting alternatives but I don't > recall where those stand. >
