On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Stefan Eissing
>> Am 16.11.2017 um 14:03 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>> So, we won't be able to ignore this for long...
>> I'd propose we migrate dsp to the oldest supported vcproj format (my cvtdsp
>> can help get these flags right) for those who like the IDE, until we show
>> that cmake generated vcproj files work just fine. Hopefully this occurs
>> prior to beta.
>> Drop .mak and .dsp files and let cmake create make files and any alternate
>> gui representations anyone needs, e.g. eclipse, code warrior etc etc etc.
> I am not able to contribute to the Windows build discussion. For the sake of
> understanding, however,
> we have currently:
> * our AP enriched automake variant
> * cmake
> * some version of visual-c/-studio project setup
> * a netware build
> Is that a complete list? And some Windows people use cmake and some the
> vcproj files?
Note that Netware maintainers have conceded that if we want to proceed
with a newer
generation of compiler and OS features that cannot be supported, that it seemed
reasonable to drop Netware at some point. Also note Netware build files can also
be generated from cmake (we likely need to add some more functionality to make
that happen to select Netware-specific sources and avoid some Win32 sources,
but I'm already hoping to support Unix via cmake as well, so doing both at once
doesn't seem like an extra headache.) I'm not speaking for our active Netware
maintainers, so this position might have changed.
Some like the vcproj files for building. Others, like myself, hate
building a distribution
from a gui, but really like visual studio/vcproj for debugging; I'm
much more efficient
there than in gdb, and features like api/variable/struct member
development simpler for the dyslexic. Not all that different than
Eclipse and similar.
Whether we provide them or can leverage cmake's vcproj creation logic, there is
absolutely demand for these to be available somehow.