On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:23:05PM -0500, DRC wrote: > On 5/14/10 6:16 AM, Adam Tkac wrote: > > I was able to built TigerVNC with MinGW as well on Windows, btw :) (but only > > with GCC 3.4.5). > > You didn't encounter the autotools problem I described?
If I remember correctly I was able to built TigerVNC with no problem. > >> I understand everyone's general aversion to Visual C++ and the desire to > >> have an integrated build system, but it also seems really bad that the > >> only viable way to build the Windows code is by using Linux. > > > > To be honest, you are right I don't like Windows as a development platform, > > but more real problem is that I don't have a Visual Studio license and > > I don't want to pay for it only due TigerVNC project. > > This is a fallacy. There are many free ways to get Visual C++. I have > been successfully using Visual C++ Express Edition (a free download) to > build VirtualGL and TurboVNC for years. Visual C++ Express Edition 2010 > just came out. These free editions are really what open source projects > should be targeting, if they choose to have a Visual C++ build environment. Interesting, this is the first time I hear about a free Visual Studio environment. I'm going to test it and if there is no problem with it I will reconsider my disapproval of the Microsoft Visual build environment. I just wonder how this free version differs from their commercial version and if there is no collision with their license. > > I see Visual Studio as an advantage only if one of the TigerVNC > > developers use Windows & VS as a primary development environment, > > which is probably not our case (if I read mails correctly you use OS X > > and me, Pierre and Peter uses GNU/Linux). In my opinion you can safely > > I use everything. I have Windows systems, Linux systems, OS X systems, > Solaris systems, you name it. With "primary development environment" I meant the preferred OS which you use for development. I, of course, also have different OSs but I usually only test software there and don't use them for "writting the code" :) > > use former MinGW with GCC 3.4.5 even if it is slower than MSVC, > > "production" builds of TigerVNC will be built with GCC 4.4 or GCC 4.5 > > which are better than MSVC. But as I wrote above, if you would like to > > resusciate VS build system and maintain it, feel free to do it, you > > have my vote. > > Well, this is kind of the fundamental problem. Whereas I believe > something needs to be done, that doesn't mean I necessarily have time to > do it. :) > > In my case, the most expedient thing is probably going to be to get > MinGW running on a Linux machine, because I have a ready supply of > those. Most people won't, though. > > Don't get me wrong-- I like the concept of building with MinGW. I just > think it isn't ready for primetime yet. This discussion is meant to > solicit ideas for how we can deal with the problem in the near term. In > the long term, MinGW will have an integrated installer, the > CLSID_ActiveDesktop problem will be fixed, etc. > > Maybe the right thing to do is to re-target the VC++ build environment > for Visual C++ Express Edition and then maintain that until MinGW is in > a more reasonable state. We can still do "official" builds with MinGW, > but I don't think it's reasonable to expect casual developers to be able > to set that up. As I wrote above I will test MS Visual Studio 2010 Express. If it will work fine then I will update *dsp build scripts and I will start to maintain them, it shouldn't be so hard. I agree with you that for Windows only developers Visual Studio environment is more natural and will bring more manpower to our project. Regards, Adam -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
