On 02/03/10 15:38, Mathias Bauer wrote:
I tend to agree that - whatever we will do - we probably won't get rid
of cygwin. Where we have to get rid of it is the building of the
"normal" modules.
As an example, if a developer is going to work on "sw", he might want to
build sw and all c++ libraries it depends on (well, without the external
ones). Being able to do that in Visual Studio would be a tremendeous
achievement. But using Visual Studio as a "launcher" for cygwin shells
is probably not what we want here. So the build of "normal" C++
libraries should run inside VS completely.
Not sure what your scenario is where the developer "might want to build
[just] sw and all c++ libraries it depends on," but doing all of that
strictly inside VS would not work if any of those C++ libraries in turn
depended on something not buildable strictly inside VS (e.g., thinking
of things like flex/bison/idlc/cppumaker/whatever invocations).
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tools.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tools.openoffice.org
