or not, I cannot judge). BPBible uses VC++ to build Sword binaries to
make it work with the standard Python distribution on Windows.
Just so you know, it's completely possible to build the Sword binaries
and the Python SWIG bindings with MinGW on Windows, and have them work
with the standard
Jonathan Morgan wrote (after quoting my entire lengthy message):
In my opinon, the expected compiler to be used for Windows binaries is
VC++, whether it is proprietary or not (for example, ask Mozilla, or
OpenOffice, or Python).
Expected by whom? Microsoft does not provide a compiler and
I'll just say once again, that the sword binaries people are looking
for at this point, is BibleCS 1.6.0 (which doesn't exist yet). There
is *no* method of compiling this with gcc, so there's no point in even
attempting it. The binaries of SWORD itself (including the utilities)
are already
Hi Jonathan,
Visual Studio is the best way to compile on Windows. I used to compile with
mingw + msys, but the environment feels slow and clumsy, and it produces
larger, slower executables. And Visual Studio is free - you can download the
express editions.
Visual Studio seems to me much easier
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Jonathan Marsden jmars...@fastmail.fm wrote:
Jonathan Morgan wrote (after quoting my entire lengthy message):
In my opinon, the expected compiler to be used for Windows binaries is
VC++, whether it is proprietary or not (for example, ask Mozilla, or
Everyone,
My tongue-in-cheek scratchy-head smiley provocative remark has achieved
what I'd hoped for.
viz. Some clarification of the perceptions and related technical
background.
For that I am profoundly grateful.
One further point in my mind relates to the use of The SWORD Project for
OK, I'll bite. Let's run with this discussion a bit...
Greg Hellings wrote:
Most Linux or FreeBSD users are familiar with a source tree compile
with autotools.
Really? In 2009? Do you have a source or at least some anecdotes to
back up that idea?
If you are correct, why was it valuable to
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 15:07, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
I suggest that this is a clear sign that today's Linux distros do not expect
their users to be experienced in downloading and compiling tarballs at a
command line in order to install software :)
I'd go further and suggest that Linux
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Jonathan Marsden jmars...@fastmail.fm wrote:
OK, I'll bite. Let's run with this discussion a bit...
Greg Hellings wrote:
Most Linux or FreeBSD users are familiar with a source tree compile
with autotools.
Really? In 2009? Do you have a source or at least
David Haslam wrote:
I think those of us who are Windows users are regarded as poor
cousins by some CrossWire programmers. :confused:
I think you may have that somewhat backwards. CrossWire itself makes
its source code available for download to everyone with Internet access,
Linux and
I think there's a second perspective you can look at it from, which is in
David's mind
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Jonathan Marsden jmars...@fastmail.fmwrote:
David Haslam wrote:
I think those of us who are Windows users are regarded as poor
cousins by some CrossWire programmers.
Greg Hellings wrote:
On another hand, one could also point out that autotools is native to
the SWORD library, is regularly updated when file names, directory
structures and the like change. Thus, at any given point, a user could
just pull the SVN tree and have a very high probability of
There are also file system paths on Windows which had not been tested,
then were found to mishandle unicode. Last I heard, this was not resolved
-- though I understand that it works fine in Linux.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that was an issue with Xiphos on
Win32. I don't think
13 matches
Mail list logo
