> Not really. Yes, I could make one -- I could tar up everything > I have locally that I used to create the AOLserver 3.4 binary > release ... but it would be very informal, and not really > supported. Gotcha. > Beat you to it. If memory serves, I've already checked my > work into CVS ... look in the win32/ directory, along with > include/Makefile.win32 ... I've hand-rolled these Makefiles > rather than having DevStudio auto-generate them. Maybe > that was foolish of me -- I'm not sure yet. ;-) OK, I'll check the CVS. > How stable is win32 gcc? I haven't dared to try it, and I doubt > it can build anything except for console apps. but maybe I'm > wrong. We use cygwin and gcc for a product at work. Cygwin is nice because it apes the unix environment so you can use the same makefiles with a few minor tweakings. Admittedly we use visual C++ for most things, but I feel this is largely because most pre-done packages are going to support that instead of gcc on windows. I don't know if it can go beyond console apps. Actually, aolserver will build partway under gcc just using configure but it gets stymied by some inconsistencies between linux and windows gcc, I think. I'm no expert on that stuff. > The source is already pretty well merged ... the only thing that > really isn't is the Tcl distribution but that's fine, and building > the Tcl stuff is pretty rock solid now, anyhow. What really needs > some more polishing is the win32 build process, and unfortunately > I know Jim likes to develop under DevStudio which means he's only > using the .dsp files ... which are probably the better way to go > on win32 but I'm just a Luddite sometimes ... The probleb (sic) with .dsp is the process is going to be interactive. Unless there is some way to convert .dsp to .mak or build from the command line a .dsp or .dsw. The way we like to do things is checkout a clean gob from CVS, build from scratch via our makefile. The less steps you have to do, and the more automatic it is, the better. It may just be that in the future when a new release of AOLServer comes out, someone will build it, tar it up and then we can just unpack it in our Makefile instead of recompiling. Which reminds me... All of this effort on my part is really just to get my hands on the .libs that you get when you build aolserver that don't seem to be part of the binary distribution. Unless I miss my mark, you need them to compile modules, right? I didn't see them around anywhere when I installed the .exe aolserver. > You can toy around with a pre-release version of AOLserver 4 by > checking it out of SourceForge CVS. I don't know whether the > development is done on Windows, but I'm sure there's at least > some minimal testing being done on Windows. 3.4 works fine for me. I'm just wondering how long before they'll want me to do this all over again when 4.0 comes out. Versionitis be damned. Thanks for your help. I'm practically useless at windows things, but I guess this is my chance to get better. I highly recommend cygwin. It's free and worth the effort. I also started using vmware a few months ago and I'm totally impressed. It's cut down the testing pain a lot, since I can have win95, win98, win2000 and winnt installed on my linux machine. Also, although most of our development takes place in unix, our application is a windows deal. So, using vmware means we no longer have to have a windows pc sit in the corner that only gets used to build official windows versions. Rusty (www.cygwin.com and www.vmware.com) ------------------------------------------ Rusty Brooks : http://www.rustybrooks.org/ Spewing wisdom from every orifice ------------------------------------------
