--- "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice. Some suggestions: > > -- take out the "completed" bit, it's too verbose. > -- I'd add also the different headers to the table > -- would be nice to organize the table like so: > ...+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > ...| Compilers | Headers | OS > | Architecture | > ...| MSVC | MinGW | SunCC | MSVC | MinGW | NetBSD | FreeBSD | > Solaris| Sparc | Alpha |
Can you send me a example in HTML of how you want to layout Headers/OS/Compilers? I am having trouble getting it from looking at the plain text. > What's up with the 95%, why not 100%? :) 95% is with Wine Headers. I was trying to get a list of everything that currently builds with the latest Mingw+MSYS and Wine headers. Once I am done with that I was going to go back and try them with w32api headers and then bump the number up to 100%. Same thing with MS_VC and the PSDK. 95% if we can build the dll/program with WINE headers and 100% if we can build it with both headers. I was planing on adding a key describing this but I forgot. If you can send me that HTML file with the table layout as you want it I will bump those numbers up to 100%. > Also, I think we should merge the two pages together, it makes > more sense. The information from porting.template should be > tabulated, and stuck in the status_porting.template, at the > begining. This way, you can have a clear and concise view of > all that's going on, rather than having two disparate pages. OK I will merge them. I just figured the status part with the tables was a little big and it would be cleaner to split it up. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
