On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:49:57PM -0400, Robert Goley wrote: > Hmm... That may be my problem. I have been trying to build > against 7.5 or the git repo. I haven't tried 7.4 since before the > TLS stuff was officially added. I will try 7.4 again and post my > results. Noticed the typo in the last email. I meant TigerVNC of > course....
Hello all, let me put my two cents in. Finally I agree we should not use MinGW for building on Windows, this is my major cons against MinGW: 1. There is problem with MinGW upstream, they have too strict patch-accepting policy. Known example is my "CLSID_ActiveDesktop" patch which is currently needed to build winvnc4 on Windows via MinGW. In future we might hit this problem again which is not so nice. Note I don't say MinGW's policy is bad, it simply is as is. However occasional TigerVNC developers need to use custom patched MinGW build system and I'm sure it's not so easy for middle-experienced Windows developer who is not familiar with GNU build system to get it working. 2. This is purely subjective point, I don't like MinGW on Windows much. In my opinion it simply doesn't fit into Windows style and I prefer to use for example Visual Studio debugger, etc. I checked scons and cmake build systems and in my opinion cmake is the right tool for us. With cmake I'm able to generate Makefiles on Linux and use standard Linux tools, like gcc, make and gdb. On Windows I'm able to generate VS project files and then use standard tools, like msvc + headers + libs and VS's debugger. Note it's also possible to generate MinGW makefiles on Windows so people who like MinGW won't suffer from this change. CMake is far more flexible for our style of development than GNU build chain. Note about Xvnc compilation. It's true we cannot use CMake for it. However common/rfb/librfb.a can be compiled via CMake and then Xvnc (with X.Org's GNU build system) can be linked against it. This means we will maintain only unix/xserver/hw/Makefile.am. In my opinion we should consider to use CMake instead of GNU build chain as our primary build system in 1.1. If I understand correctly Darrell is also for CMake but I would like to hear opinion of Peter and Pierre. My vote is +1 for CMake in TigerVNC 1.1. Regards, Adam > >Me too! That is why I'm willing to work on the CMake system. I haven't > >yet been able to successfully build the Windows code myself, except for > >just VNCViewer (which is painful because of all the MinGW dependencies.) > > > >As far as building on Lenny, I'm surprised that using build-xorg doesn't > >work for you. That method, when used with the Xorg 7.4 code base, > >should be backward compatible all the way back to RHEL 4 and its > >contemporaries (Ubuntu 6, etc.) > > > >On 9/30/10 8:46 AM, Robert Goley wrote: > >> I realize it would never completely replace autotools. I was just > >>hoping for wrapper that would work a bit better. I haven't had that > >>much luck with compiling TigerVNC on Lenny yet. The client stuff works > >>fine but even compiling the whole Xorg tree for dependencies has not > >>worked yet... May have just been my frustration coming thru... The > >>Windows platform is next on my list and history tells me it never plays > >>nice (MSVC or MinGW). I really want to start working with TightVNC's > >>TLS connections. I applaud the work all the developers have done and > >>look forward to when I can actually get to use it. -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
