Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:01:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Window's Makefiles
In-Reply-To: <B0000006519@paxsys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95dg3.980123155934.25300G-100000@twinlark.arctic.org>
Organization: Transmeta Corp.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

I think my point is that I can't believe that the windows development
environment is this stupid.  It certainly wasn't when I worked at WATCOM 4
years ago.  We were able to build multi-tool makefiles with a minimum of
effort.

You need a .c.obj rule.  You need a linking rule.  You need a library
building rule.

But given that I am 4 years out of date on this crap I'll just have to
take your words for it.

Dean

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Paul Brophy wrote:

> Time. And considering how much we're all getting paid for this... If I'm
> working on the NT build, do I really want to tweak n-thousand makefiles
> (and invoke the wrath of those platform supporters)? I think not.
> 
> How about we only officially support non vc++ environments. Then, those of
> who prefer IDEs will continue working as we do now (and this discussion can
> end).
> 
> Now if we only had a per platform/compiler demi-god...
> 
> ----------
> > From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
> > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Window's Makefiles
> > Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 3:07 PM
> > 
> > This seems quite stupid.  Beyond a CC definition, a linker definition,
> and
> > a librarian definition, all of these files should be the same.  Why
> should
> > we support only visual c++ when we could support more windows compilation
> > environments?
> > 
> > Dean
>  
>