On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Francois Gouget wrote:
There are subtle differences between how the Unix makefiles work and how the Windows makefiles work.
Yes, but I suggested using cygwin, which comes with GNU make, which is quite compatible with the one on Unix, because... it's the same one! :) Really, some time ago I tried to port Wine to cygwin, and I had no problems whatsoever with the make system. This is a red herring.
In addition to that the MSVC compiler supports different options, etc.
Right. But's that's why we have configure.
Using the cygwin make tool (i guess they provide one)
Read about cygwin here: http://www.cygwin.com (I think...) It is a Unix emulation layer build on top of Win32. It is Wine^-1 :) As such, it come with the same, unmodified utils familliar to Linux users.
could help but it would not solve the compiler option problem.
That's trivial to solve, come on...
Plus cygwin works in a world where all paths are Unix paths while the MSVC compiler expects you to use drive letters (but will happily accept '/'s).
If it accepts '/'s, what's the problem? Where (and why) would you use drive letters??? We only deal with relative paths to Wine's root...
In any case you would most likely end up rewriting the makefiles and this would as much work as just generating brand new .dsp files.
I strongly disagree, but since I don't have VC to show you... :)
But you would have to run configure on Windows, no? Since configure is a shell script this means you need something like cygwin to compile the source :-/ Or did you mean to run configure on Unix to generate just the right Makefiles for use on Windows?
No, you have bash in cygwin. It will work just fine.
-- Dimi.