Re: Win32 port status?

[Jari Turkia]

I move the discussion off the ML. Not that there is anyhing secret, but 
I don't think this contains anything that would interest the public.

Pawel Kot wrote:
> > Plain and simple: What is the Win32 port status?
> In short: unknown and unmaintained but reported from time to time to 
> work :-)
Ok. That pretty much explains the situation.
> > In brief: A Win32 binary can be built from latest source. There are some
> > changes and bugs that would have to be stored into CVS (the getopt_long
> > declaration bug is a nasty one!) so that further releases would compile
> Would you provide a patch?
Sure, I can do that. But before I do that we need to agree on how to 
handle the "GNUisms" and "windowsisms" in the source. For example: MS 
compilers do not have gmtime function, but similar operation can be 
simulated using two separate calls and a few temporary variables to 
store the intermediate results.
> You are very welcome. I'd like to get from you few patches as a good
> start and shortly after probably give you CVS write access. We
> definitely need more win32 support -- I wanted to take care of it
> recently but see below.
Let's take a slow start. I'll send you a couple of patches and if you 
think they are working, the code is good and looks good by style and 
operation, then we can discuss CVS-access. I do not want to mess up the 
good thing(tm) you have going on here.
> That's correct. I was trying for the last few days to install VSE on
> my work laptop but failed as Windows XP SP2 seems incompatible with it
> (and SP2 is required by VSE). So I have in fact no development
> environment for win32 (just cygwin).
What is the Cygwin status currently? The package does not seem to be in 
Cygwin distribution, but does it compile?
> > Also a ready built binary version for each new release
> > would be needed. And as an additional bonus, I'm sure I could hack up a
> > system to run a nightly build for Win32 version too.
> Wow. That would be even better than what we have for Linux right now!
Ok. :-) Look how I pretty optimistically wrote "Win32 version too".

For Linux nightlies, I could offer a linux with gcc-4.0.2/glibc-2.3.5 or 
gcc-3.4.5/glibc-2.3.4. What would be the linux distribution, GCC and 
GLibC preference? And to be specific, both of those are i386 platforms. 
We do run a couple of x86_64s too, so to me i386 is not an automatic 
default.
> > So, how does that sound like?
> Sounds great! I'm waiting impatiently to get some stuff from you! :-)
The 0.6.11 Win32 binaries are ready, I could send them first. It will 
take a while for me to prepare a proper patch for Visual C compiling.

Regards,
Jari Turkia