Michael Meeks-5 wrote > * I was excited about Chocolatey ... eventually I gave up, and moved on to > manual installation.
As did I. If you look at the history all of the Chocolatey info was recently added. It seems to cause more problems than it solves. Should we should move it off into it's own section at the end until it offers a smooth experience? Michael Meeks-5 wrote > * Recommending a known-good Visual Studio > > The LODE page for some reason recommends Visual Studio 2015 - three > times, though there is 2013 in the small print. Again, the VS2015 info was all added with Chocolatey. The old LODE wiki page recommend 2013. <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=Development/lode&oldid=123276> Also the main Windows dev page also makes it clear that 2013 is the preferred version. That said I'd rather see a VS2015 Jenkins or Tinderbox rather than steer people away from it. I've been building both 32/64 VS2015 builds regularly all year long. Michael Meeks-5 wrote > * Antivirus The main Windows dev pages covers this topic thoroughly. <https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/BuildingOnWindows#BitDefender_.2F_other_Anti-Virus_.2F_security_tools_breaking_the_build> Since you've verified it's a problem, please add McAffe to the list that's already there. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Recommended-build-instructions-tp4193014p4193053.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
