msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> It's been over a week since mg tagged 2.1.3 and we still haven't
> released 2.1.3. I guess this is because no one has been able to
> make a windows binary. Is that right?
Over a week? its been like 3 days. I was going to build it yesterday,
but between my 14hour days (5+ days a week) I ended up sleeping, and
so will be making the build tonight (short day, only 12 hours).
>
> I no that mg and others have gone to truely heroic lengths to build these
> without success.
>
> I guess I'd like there to be an open discussion on this list as to why
> building the windows installer is so hard when people can routinely make
> test builds.
>
I have no idea why its so hard for others, I've never had problems
using the Make build with MSVC and Cygwin. (I have never successfully
built using the MSVC project files, but then again I haven't tried in
a few years). The only possible difference I've found between my setup
and most people, is that since I install cygwin to the root of my drive,
the cygpath garbage is optional. MinGW should work as well, excluding
Windows build breakages which tend to not be fixed on MinGW as quickly,
it should be easier to get a build from, as we use MSYS + MinGW, so its
all integrated.
[Our NSIS (installer builder) should compile and run using MinGW,
but the current NSIS code in their cvs is much more portable, so
much so that as long as you have the exehead header (portion that
runs when do an installation) file, you can build installers on
POSIX compatible platforms, ie the Windows installer can be built
on Linux if you really wanted to (such as cross compiling Abi and
then generating an installer -- however our installer may fail,
as we use a system() call in our installer script to generate
portions of the installer script during build time, this allows
the script to adjust to files such as plugins or so that may or
may not be available without requiring manual intervention --
the actual logic is from the NSIS developers).]
It is possible our build setup requires NT, I don't build on
any Win9x computer, but we don't do anything that purposely
only works on NT, simply I've never and have no intention to,
test building on Win9x.
> I hope that by the end of the discussionwe'll have a concesus on the way
> to move forward to stop making building these binaries so hard.
>
> In the mean time I'll also pose the question, can we make a test binary
> that works with just say win 98 or later? Or even win XP or later?
>
> This is a test build not a production release so I think we can get away
> with that.
>
> In any case lets have a discussion about our options.
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin
>
> .
>
I do have plans to speed up my time to provide release
builds, a nice little web interface that the CVS tag is
specified, and about 10-30 minutes later, a build is available;
simply a matter of too much to do and only 24hrs in a day.
Jeremy
Received on Sat Jun 12 02:42:50 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 12 2004 - 02:42:50 CEST