daa wrote: > > JTK wrote: > > > Ok, I'm trying to get this beast built on Windows. So far things are going > > pretty well (yet the night is still so very, very young). But what's the deal > > with the "Windows Build Tools" package?: > > > > "Netscape has internally modified versions of gmake, shmsdos, and uname that we > > use to get around some problems we were having keeping in sync with the Unix > > version of gmake" > > > > Um, ok, since Cygwin (which is also required and rightly so) has fully > > functional GNU make, ash and bash, and uname, why is this stuff still necessary? > > Or is it leftover crud that never got removed? > > the big difference is the Moz version of uname returns a different OS string > that the make files use > Ok, so why not "winuname"? I mean seriously, "shmsdos" cannot be anywhere nearly comparable to the Unixy goodness of Cygwin's ash and/or bash, nor can a bastardized "gmake" compare with Cygwin's GNU make. How about reducing this barrier a little? And on the "uname" topic, you mean that with all the Cygwin seds and awks and perls that are already required (again, rightly so) to build Mozilla, that sense can't be made out of "CYGWIN_NT-5.0"? > dave
