coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 18:57, Philip Allison <mangobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My point is that sometimes these patches change the code, and
> sometimes these patches tweak the build system, but I've never seen a
> package outright replace the upstream build system.  MinGW is popular
> because it allows, with admittedly fairly steep set-up costs, a
> project to have one build script that covers both Windows and UNIX -
> because the same toolchain is used on both.  This obviously isn't 100%
> compatible with CoApp's goal of using a Microsoft toolchain - which
> isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a *different* thing.  Unless the
> plan is to port the autotools to the CoApp environment and make the
> Visual Studio tools command-line compatible with GNU make, GCC, ld,
> etc. - which would be absolutely awesome IMHO, but I get the feeling
> that's *not* the plan, hence my questions. :)

I don't care much for command-line compatibility, but I do care for
easy installability of whatever tools I need. One of the things that's
scared me off of building binaries of Python extensions is the sheer
size of MSVS, a tool that (to me, a Windows user who does all of his
development on POSIX boxen) appears to creep into every nook and
cranny of my machine and then still requires ugly .bat scripts to
setup a specific environment.

Whereas on my Linux or OS X box, make and configure *just work*.

Cheers,

Dirkjan