search for: streu

On Dec 3, 2007 1:24 PM, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote: > John Miles wrote: > > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? > > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. > > > > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, > > in my op...

What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, in my opinion. MS changes their IDEs and project-file formats more often than most people change their underwear. The odds that any given open-source project will actually compile without any

Peter Grayson wrote: > On Dec 3, 2007 1:24 PM, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote: >>The only "problem" is to find out what files are needed for the library >>and which are superfluous (i.e. test/demo programs with their own >>main()). A minimal Makefile would help to document that, and enable >>people create projects, with mini...

On 12/3/07, Stefan Reuther <streu@gmx.de> wrote: > John Miles wrote: > > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? > > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. > > > > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, > > in my op...

John Miles wrote: > What's wrong with a plain old .bat file, or even an NMAKE .mak file? > Ship two files, debug.bat and release.bat, and call it good. > > It is best to leave project-file creation up to individual users, > in my opinion. I second that. When I played around with Speex a while ago, I just dumped the Speex source files into a .dsp file (Visual Studio Project),