David Boreham wrote:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven,
>>> so that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
>> I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
>> separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
>> CMake is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
>> both makefiles and MSVC .proj's from a single set of master build files.
> To add my 2d worth to this: after working on a few very large
> projects that built on both Unix and Windows my preference is
> to use a single autotools-based build for both, with a script called cccl
> that translates cc-style arguments for Microsoft's cl compiler/linker
> tool chain (plus Cygwin for the command line utilities, gmake etc).
> We have a locally-enhanced version of cccl that's a bit
> more capable than the latest public version, I seem to remember.
But that still requires you to have a full set of "unix style
commandline tools" on your windows box in order to build, no? And if it
doesn't generate project files and such, it won't be usable in Visual
Studio, just the commandline compiler...
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly