On 5/17/10 9:52 AM, Peter Åstrand wrote: > Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the problems with MinGW instead? If > the "official" downloads are bad, we can provide our own > MinGW-for-windows. Shouldn't be very difficult. Sounds more fruitful > than trying to maintain multiple build systems. > > Windows developers would still be able to edit and browse the source > with Visual Studio, even if they need to build with MinGW.
Per my previous message, there are a lot of additional components required, not just MinGW. We'd have to distribute the necessary MSYS components as well. In total, this would amount to hundreds of megabytes of software, which someone from our group would have to maintain. Adam is 100% right that maintaining the VC++ build scripts is tons easier. I personally believe that MinGW is only a usable build environment if it is run on Linux. The other issue with MinGW is that it simply takes too long to build with it on a real Windows system. I personally cannot be productive as a TigerVNC developer if I have to wait for the build to grind for 20 minutes every time I change something significant. I mean, just re-running the configure script takes a good 5 minutes of that. It isn't workable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
