[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Win32 maintainer needed

From: Brandon J. Van Every
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Win32 maintainer needed
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:34:16 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)

felix winkelmann wrote:

On 1/8/06, Sergey Khorev <address@hidden> wrote:
I'd like to (excluding CMake stuff), but I'm very confused by your
words about lots of work :)
Support for Windows looks mature enough to not require daily hacking.
Can you please explain what are those big problems?

Also what will be modus operandi? E.g. shall maintainer just fish out
Windows-specific tasks from the maillist or you just have got lots of these?

I can apply patches myself, and fix the most glaring bugs. But where I really
need help is with maintaining build issues. That is, testing of mingw,
cygwin and msvc builds.
This is within the scope of what I'm willing to do. Also I intend to implement support for a full bootstrap with CMake at some point. At present I am limited to the C tarballs.

I would also like to have someone to look into
compiling Chicken with Open Watcom.
I'm willing to work with that author on getting the CMake guys to support Watcom. I'm not willing to build or test anything other than CMake builds. I believe in the One True Build System, and that's CMake.

And providing win32 binaries, of course, once for every major release.
I can do that, so long as I have licensed compilers to do it with. Visual Studio .NET 2003 is the last Microsoft compiler I paid for, and I don't plan to continue with Microsoft $$$ products. Fortunately there are the free VCToolkits, unless MS decides to pull the rug out from under them. The downside of a VCToolkit build is that it'll be done with nmake, not .sln files. This isn't convenient for the MSdevs using the lastest greatest MS 2005 compiler, but hey, there's never anything great about a new MS product anyways. General rule of thumb is to wait 2 years for those clowns to get their act together. So my licensed .NET 2003 will hold the line for the time being. Also, 2005 .sln builds may very well work, I just won't be testing them.

Another caveat is I'm running a Windows 2000 box. I don't have XP, and I won't be acquiring it until I buy a new computer. Maybe sometime this year, finances permitting. This is just a fine-tuned testing caveat though. If someone really really cares and they have more modern compilers and OSes, they can step up.

Brandon Van Every
"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
                               - Ed McKenzie

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]