2.5 alpha proposal

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

So, we won't be able to ignore this for long...

I'd propose we migrate dsp to the oldest supported vcproj format (my cvtdsp
can help get these flags right) for those who like the IDE, until we show
that cmake generated vcproj files work just fine. Hopefully this occurs
prior to beta.

Drop .mak and .dsp files and let cmake create make files and any alternate
gui representations anyone needs, e.g. eclipse, code warrior etc etc etc.

Thoughts?

RE: 2.5 alpha proposal

[Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: donderdag 16 november 2017 16:40
> To: httpd <de...@httpd.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: 2.5 alpha proposal
> 
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Stefan Eissing
> <st...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> >> Am 16.11.2017 um 14:03 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@rowe-
> clan.net>:
> >>
> >> So, we won't be able to ignore this for long...
> >>
> >> I'd propose we migrate dsp to the oldest supported vcproj format (my
> cvtdsp can help get these flags right) for those who like the IDE, until we
> show that cmake generated vcproj files work just fine. Hopefully this occurs
> prior to beta.
> >>
> >> Drop .mak and .dsp files and let cmake create make files and any alternate
> gui representations anyone needs, e.g. eclipse, code warrior etc etc etc.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > I am not able to contribute to the Windows build discussion. For the sake
> of understanding, however,
> > we have currently:
> >   * our AP enriched automake variant
> >   * cmake
> >   * some version of visual-c/-studio project setup
> >   * a netware build
> > ?
> >
> > Is that a complete list? And some Windows people use cmake and some
> the vcproj files?
> 
> Perfect summary.
> 
> Note that Netware maintainers have conceded that if we want to proceed
> with a newer
> generation of compiler and OS features that cannot be supported, that it
> seemed
> reasonable to drop Netware at some point. Also note Netware build files can
> also
> be generated from cmake (we likely need to add some more functionality to
> make
> that happen to select Netware-specific sources and avoid some Win32
> sources,
> but I'm already hoping to support Unix via cmake as well, so doing both at
> once
> doesn't seem like an extra headache.) I'm not speaking for our active
> Netware
> maintainers, so this position might have changed.
> 
> Some like the vcproj files for building. Others, like myself, hate
> building a distribution
> from a gui, but really like visual studio/vcproj for debugging; I'm
> much more efficient
> there than in gdb, and features like api/variable/struct member
> autocompletion make
> development simpler for the dyslexic. Not all that different than
> Eclipse and similar.
> Whether we provide them or can leverage cmake's vcproj creation logic,
> there is
> absolutely demand for these to be available somehow.

I would go the CMake route and use that as the primary buildscript for Windows.

Microsoft spends quite some time making this work directly for the last few VS versions. Start using .vcproj instead of .dsp, still moves us to a > 10 year no longer actively supported format. Visual Studio 2010 moved to using MSBuild based .vcxproj files, which work much better from the commandline than .dsp / .vcproj... But it is not hard to generate these from CMake.

	Bert

Re: 2.5 alpha proposal

[William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Stefan Eissing
<st...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
>> Am 16.11.2017 um 14:03 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>>
>> So, we won't be able to ignore this for long...
>>
>> I'd propose we migrate dsp to the oldest supported vcproj format (my cvtdsp can help get these flags right) for those who like the IDE, until we show that cmake generated vcproj files work just fine. Hopefully this occurs prior to beta.
>>
>> Drop .mak and .dsp files and let cmake create make files and any alternate gui representations anyone needs, e.g. eclipse, code warrior etc etc etc.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I am not able to contribute to the Windows build discussion. For the sake of understanding, however,
> we have currently:
>   * our AP enriched automake variant
>   * cmake
>   * some version of visual-c/-studio project setup
>   * a netware build
> ?
>
> Is that a complete list? And some Windows people use cmake and some the vcproj files?

Perfect summary.

Note that Netware maintainers have conceded that if we want to proceed
with a newer
generation of compiler and OS features that cannot be supported, that it seemed
reasonable to drop Netware at some point. Also note Netware build files can also
be generated from cmake (we likely need to add some more functionality to make
that happen to select Netware-specific sources and avoid some Win32 sources,
but I'm already hoping to support Unix via cmake as well, so doing both at once
doesn't seem like an extra headache.) I'm not speaking for our active Netware
maintainers, so this position might have changed.

Some like the vcproj files for building. Others, like myself, hate
building a distribution
from a gui, but really like visual studio/vcproj for debugging; I'm
much more efficient
there than in gdb, and features like api/variable/struct member
autocompletion make
development simpler for the dyslexic. Not all that different than
Eclipse and similar.
Whether we provide them or can leverage cmake's vcproj creation logic, there is
absolutely demand for these to be available somehow.

Re: 2.5 alpha proposal

[Stefan Eissing <st...@greenbytes.de>]

> Am 16.11.2017 um 14:03 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
> 
> So, we won't be able to ignore this for long...
> 
> I'd propose we migrate dsp to the oldest supported vcproj format (my cvtdsp can help get these flags right) for those who like the IDE, until we show that cmake generated vcproj files work just fine. Hopefully this occurs prior to beta.
> 
> Drop .mak and .dsp files and let cmake create make files and any alternate gui representations anyone needs, e.g. eclipse, code warrior etc etc etc.
> 
> Thoughts?

I am not able to contribute to the Windows build discussion. For the sake of understanding, however,
we have currently:
  * our AP enriched automake variant
  * cmake
  * some version of visual-c/-studio project setup
  * a netware build
?

Is that a complete list? And some Windows people use cmake and some the vcproj files?

Cheers,
Stefan