> I'm in. Any objections? > > BTW. I have a version that uses MS tools under the standard gnu build > structure ready for checkin. In addition to making lots of code changes > for MS, I did wrappers for the MS compilers etc. that make them compatible > with the gnu tools, and have MSVC6 projects for everything. I think its a > necessary step before checking in the true Windows version of the > exec that doesn't require Exceed and supports the ActiveDX component stuff.
Are you going to check in your wrapper for MSVC too? It would be a great help. Which XDk version are you using? > So. Are we go for 4.1.0? Yes Please. Suhaib > > Greg > > "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@opendx.watson.ibm.com on > 03/14/2000 07:43:30 AM > > Please respond to opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de > > Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > To: <opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de> > cc: > Subject: [opendx-dev] Which version number to use > > > > > Are we going to declare 4.0.10 are 4.1.0? > > I am trying to get OpenDx binaries compiled by using Exceed XDK 6.2 and > MSVC > 6.0 > out of door. MSVC compilation requires a lot of manual editings, > if we are > set on declaring 4.0.10 as 4.1.0 then I might bump the version number now, > instead of redoing it again. > After the release of Windows 2000 Microsoft SDK has a lot of new headers > and it required a good amount of OpenDx 4.0.10 source patching. M$ is > about > to > release MSVC 7.0 which would have a lot of Win64 releated library and > header > changes again. > We would need to do a lot of patching again after MSVC 7.0 is > released. It > may make binaries > unstable at that time. I prefer to see the DX version bumped now > before we > get into another cycle of > unstable binaries due to changes in compilers and libraries. > > Suhaib > > >
