Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Mathias Bauer wrote: >> I just wanted to point out that you seem to underestimate the value >> of a less diverse build system. Most probably because you don't >> have to maintain it. ;-) >> > Quite the contrary. I have to personally setup all the win32 build > prerequisites on each and every box or vm I want to build OOo with - > and it's a royal PITA. That's why I maintain that cygwin is not the > problem. But as you noted elsewhere, we'll likely need to keep it no > matter what (for the while), so I guess this point is settled. ;)
Yes, and moreover, I think that most of this side step discussion was caused by a misunderstanding. Getting a leaner build system than we have now is important (IMHO), but of course it is not the most important point in a way that the "leanest" new system automatically would be the best. It might make the difference though in case all else is equal (or at least similar). If that's what you call "a runner-up goal", I agree with you. Nevertheless it's good to track that on our page as this might be something we have to consider. 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]
