Why not just host MingGW on the site and create installs on-line?
I have recently used a "Cloud" Compiler and it is nice to not
have to mess with setups and stuff.
Just an idea.
Anders
Martin Paljak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mar 24, 2010, at 21:55 , Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> I try to avoid wine as much as I can.
> I'm not very fond of it either but it is something that makes Windows hating
> Linux users tolerate the beast :)
>
>> Anyway, I have no feeling for the windows binaries... I do not use the
>> output anyway :)
> If the target is to create a Windows installer that feels and works great *on
> Windows*, most probably one has to work with Windows and some of the tools it
> provides.
>
> For example code signing, can it be done with Linux tools (not theoretically
> but in real life)? I would like to see OpenSC project distribute signed
> packages whenever possible (yes, to have end-user compatible signatures on
> Windows costs money)
>
>> I just provide them because after I rewrote the opensc build system,
>> there was no reason to maintain parallel build system for windows
>> only, and the windows build was unmaintained anyway.
> Right, the "problem" here being that there has never been no "windows build
> system". It has always only been "possible to build the code with visual
> studio".
>
> That's OK, as long as we can provide working binaries. One option would be to
> have an alternative build system for native build, like CMake (in addition to
> the autotools stack). I remember somebody showing interest in providing a
> cmake build solution as well.
>
>
>> So free to do whatever you think best.
>>
>> I can continue building binaries whenever version gets out using
>> current build project, but if it is not necessary we can drop it in
>> favor of something else.
> I like the current ("new" ?) build system. I think it should be "kept close"
> to OpenSC. The only problem I see is with current /build is the extra baggage
> of the build solution (OpenVPN) which is good on its own terms but not really
> related to OpenSC. I'm not against software bundles that include open source
> software that can use PKCS#11 but that should be clearly labelled as "OpenSC
> software bundle" not as "OpenSC (installer)"
>
> In total there are four problems:
> - how to generate binaries (with current "build" project or manually with
> visual studio)
> - how to package the binaries into a package usable by end users (with nsis
> or with innosetup or with with some .msi generator)
> - how to automate the build process as much as possible (where some of the
> native tools can be run via wine if necessary, on the current infrastructure)
> - what the package does (what is the main question of my original e-mail)
>
>
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
