RE: Standardizing the Windows build

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald at phy dot cmich dot edu>]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> From: Eric McDonald [mailto:mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu]
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> > is that the Cygwin Tcl installation on _your_ system is broken. If
> > your TCL_INCLUDE_SPEC points to a nonexistent directory, then
> > something isn't right. (And if this argument is going to reach
> > flamewar crescendo again, let's take it back off-list.)
> 
> Eric, with all due respect, if you believe
> TCL_INCLUDE_SPEC=C:\nonexistent\include
> is somehow unique to my machine,

I didn't say it was unique to your machine, but I am not going to 
generalize it to everyone either. Hence the "I'm not so sure".

> standard Cygwin distribution, then you didn't download a clean Cygwin
> distribution and check it.

That's correct. I didn't, and I didn't tell you that I did either.

>  You also said you built your own TCL from
> sources some time ago and never used the Cygwin binary distribution.

Never _successfully_ used the Cygwin Tcl/Tk binaries (which were 
old anyway).

> Either sanity check it yourself, or accept that the current Cygwin TCL
> binaries are what they are.

Which is what?

> > It's not a matter of being evil. I simply would not want to say
> > that I would want that to be the only approved, supported way to
> > build Xconq under Windows.
> 
> As it stands now, there is no particular approved, supported way to
> build Xconq under Windows.

That would seem to be the case. I suppose I should sit down 
sometime and recreate the way I built Tcl/Tk on Cygwin, or else 
go entirely to ActiveTcl for everything. Then there would be at 
least one way.

>  You've suggested to me that to do Xconq
> under Windoze right now, it'll take "fiddling." 

Yes. To build it, anyway. To play it or design games with it, no; 
that "issue" has recently been addressed.

> There should be at least 1 approved, supported way.  It should be the
> primary, expected way.

Sounds good.

> secondary ways, feel free.  But there should be a primary, expected way,
> that the vast majority of Windoze developers and developer wannabes use.

Sounds good.

> The policy should be, "We do this, we stress test it, and we know that
> it works.

If you wish to volunteer to be the person who upholds that policy, 
then please be my guest.

> stress test it.  We may not be willing to put any energy into making it
> work."  

Or at least not put any energy into it at this moment.

> > can't imagine anyone complaining.
> 
> 'Cept me.  Why should I support a Windoze build that nobody else will
> stress test and develop with?  

I ask myself the same question. 

>I shouldn't.  

Then why should I? You seem to be complaining that we didn't do 
this for you, when you yourself wouldn't do it for others.

> nothing stopping me from taking the Xconq code and doing whatever I'd
> like with it within the terms of the license.

That's correct. One of the very nice features of such a 
license....

> own game from scratch.  The advantage is to work with an extant team
> that knows the code, provides new features, bugfixes, labor if they're
> interested in some idea, etc.

Yes.

Eric