Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 02/03/10 15:38, Mathias Bauer wrote: >> I tend to agree that - whatever we will do - we probably won't get rid >> of cygwin. Where we have to get rid of it is the building of the >> "normal" modules. >> >> As an example, if a developer is going to work on "sw", he might want to >> build sw and all c++ libraries it depends on (well, without the external >> ones). Being able to do that in Visual Studio would be a tremendeous >> achievement. But using Visual Studio as a "launcher" for cygwin shells >> is probably not what we want here. So the build of "normal" C++ >> libraries should run inside VS completely. > > Not sure what your scenario is where the developer "might want to build > [just] sw and all c++ libraries it depends on," but doing all of that > strictly inside VS would not work if any of those C++ libraries in turn > depended on something not buildable strictly inside VS (e.g., thinking > of things like flex/bison/idlc/cppumaker/whatever invocations).
Well, "all" was perhaps too much. I was aiming on what you usually work with. A lot of common build scenarios require nothing special, just the "usual suspects". Many modules could be build with Visual Studio. That's nothing for a complete build, but very useful for the daily work of the developers. That would definitely be a benefit. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[email protected]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
