[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Do you want VS .NET 2003 support?
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
Raimar Falke wrote:
> >
> > Would it be heretical to suggest that you *could* (IMO
> > that's "should")
> > have *all* needed project libraries as part of your source
> > distribution?
>
> This won't happen.
> pro:
> - people who compile Freeciv doesn't have to track down and/or
> download the sources of the other libs manually
>
> con:
> - more maintenance burder for Freeciv
How? You'd update these libraries once in a blue moon. Sounds like
you've got a major case of perceived vs. actual workload here. When's
the last time you updated libintl?
> - larger distro
Compressed, you're talking about 1MB more libraries. Personally I think
that tradeoff is definitely worth it. Many of us consider it Good
Engineering to have a consistent, working build environment readily
available. Your problem is, you do Linux and things are fine on your
end.
It's also clear you're not completely religious about this stuff,
because you do have gnulibintl in your distro.
> BTW: you are aware of ftp://ftp.freeciv.org/freeciv/requirements/?
> What sources are missed there?
I don't care to explain to you how much of a PITA it is to get a
consistent Windows build going. Suffice it to say, I've never achieved
it.
Anyways it should be noted that the VS .NET 2003 support I've
implemented requires a custom compiled libpng, zlib, and dirent. That's
how I get MSVCRT71.dll linkage and how I get rid of the need for Cygwin.
I'm more interested in whether the *runtime* is bloated, not the
sources. If this is considered heinous and evil... well then I really
don't think you guys are even slightly serious about supporting Windows
builds that use mainstream Windows development environments.
Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
- Ed Mckenzie
|
|