JTK wrote:
> Unless I'm seeing things, I finally got this mother to build, and it
> runs.
Congrats ;)
> 1. It appears to not build on the 9x series, only the NT series. That
> kinda sucks, especially since I don't have Why2K at home.
I was able to build it on Win98 SE about a year ago (but I couldn't do
cvs update, it always hung). And I do believe there are other people
building it even now on those 'lesser' platforms. Win98 etc. have some
serious limitations with the DOS prompt...
> 2. The requirement of command.com/cmd.exe has got to go. Even on NT we
> all know it's a disaster, and is probably the reason behind #1.
Not sure what you mean... I use the bash shell that comes with Cygwin
just fine.
> 3. Someone still needs to explain to me why the 'wintools' are needed
> when the equivalent (== much better) Cygwin ones are already there.
At least one of the wintools reports different OS string than the Cygwin
tools. That would probably be easy to fix (just changing some
makefiles). I don't know if there are other issues. The reason (I am
guessing) this requirement is still there is because nobody has bothered
to get rid of it.
> 4. Did I see a Win***16*** target in there?!?!? Lord.
Yeah, some parts (NSPR?) work, or at least used to work, on 16-bit
platforms.
> 5. Someone also needs to explain to me why I can't do a simple 'cvs
> update'. I know there's lots of branches and whatnot - gcc has the same
> issues and yet doesn't have these cvs problems.
Mozilla consists of many modules, and some modules must be pulled from
specific branches with specific CVS tags. It might be possible to make
everything pull from the tip of the trunk, but I do not know all the
issues. If you want to change the situation, you need to convince the
module owners of a better way. I'd start with security: if you can
convince those guys the rest would probably follow easily.
--
Heikki Toivonen
