Building with GUI must be possible, always ! That is just the very strong point for building windows; do not degrade.
Btw OT, VC11 is around the corner, with also c language changes, maybe better wait for that. Op 20 jan. 2012 om 20:32 heeft "Gregg L. Smith" <g...@gknw.net> het volgende geschreven: > On 1/20/2012 12:14 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 1/20/2012 2:06 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote: >>> Due to the fact that right now, you have to convert to VC9 first, then >>> convert to VC10, I >>> have some insight here that I am sure you do as well. >> Good point... >> >>> If you have done this, you may remember how long that last conversion takes >>> to accomplish. >>> I can convert in VC9 from dsw/dsp in under a minute. The last time I tried >>> converting VC9 >>> to VC10 it took a long, long time. Minutes, many minutes. >>> >>> I would have to assume converting up from VC7 would be same on VC9 as >>> converting 9 to 10. >>> Even if not, from 7 to 10 would again, be a slow process. >> That is troublesome. However, it only affects GUI interaction? It should >> not impact .mak based builds. > > True, but there are reasons I prefer the GUI, biggest is where one runs into > trouble during a compile. I can rebuild any specific problem project/s, > remove buildbin dependency from the installbin project, and when I have > hammered out the specific problems, use said installbin to just copy the > files into place. > > Good example is recent APR-Util 1.4.1 and the static lib not compiling w/ > crypto. I was able to compile all but the few things linked to the static > lib, remove the crypto switch in apu.hw, then built the static lib and the > things like ab and abs that linked to it, none needed apr_crypto anyway. Not > such an easy task to do via makefile. > > New people to the game also prefer the GUI, after all, why do we have Windows > (ok, KDE. XServer, Gnome, same in the *nix world these days)? > >>> This was my technical reason behind my request to keep the dsw/dsp files >>> while also >>> supplying VC10 sln/vcproj as well. This way, all are covered, and no one >>> has to wait a >>> long time for the conversion. Sure, many are EOL but none the less still in >>> use. >> Will consider this. Or provide a much more efficient transition. > > Thanks, I see Steffen has spoken up on this on the other thread as well. > > Regards, > > Gregg
