Tor, I agree that the SUA/Interix arrangement is a bit strange and they seem to be sitting on the (relicensed?) source code. It is also a little tricky to operate across environments because of the file-system differences. I was mostly joking about that. I wouldn't attempt to build a win32/64 release there if the goal was a native win32/64 GUI application.
I'm not thrilled that Cygwin is essential. I'll have to reserve judgment about that part beyond simply getting builds to work first. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tor Lillqvist Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 01:51 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Who wants to build OpenOffice? > i don't believe we have a working windows 64-bit build yet, Indeed. I hacked on that a bit in February I think it was, but didn't get so far to have actual application code running. I did this work in LibreOffice, so the resulting clearly newly written bits of code, configury and makefilery can not be used by AOOo, though, sorry. >> Just for laughs, I also have the Subsystem for Unix Applications >> (SUA) set up, > for the Windows build we currently require Cygwin; perhaps it would be > possible to build with this Microsoft UNIX thing instead, but i don't > think anybody has tried it. I experimented a bit with configuring and building under SUA (a.k.a Interix), last year I think it was, but it was certainly not trivial. Lots of stuff need changing from how currently done under Cygwin. Add to that the very confusing state of SUA official and semi-official add-on software repositories and whatnot, I didn't bother experimenting any further. With all its faults (slowness, occasional random crashes and/or hangs), Cygwin still is fairly reliable and building OOo/LO under it has worked fine for many years. Also, Cygwin has an official package repository. With Interix I always was confused as to what version of various 3rd-party tools I need to install from where, or build myself, to get a usable system. --tml
