similar to: Visual Studio project files in Speex 1.2beta

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Jean-Marc Valin < jean-marc.valin at usherbrooke.ca> wrote: > Tom Grandgent a ?crit : > > If you remove the project files, I doubt it's going to make things easier > > for anyone. You'll probably just increase the number of questions as > > people struggle to compile using less common and less user-friendly > > methods,

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 opinion. > > I second that. When I played around with Speex

I pulled the test directory from 2003, but everything else from 2005. The 2005 files have more ?cross-compiling? targets than the 2003 ones. I fixed the various missing files in the new 2008 projects (misc.c and one other other are gone now). The only thing you could do which would make them more compact would be to get rid of the subdirectories under each vs-version. There is no real need for

On 2.10.2013 20:27, lvqcl wrote: > Ralph Giles wrote: > >> The way we've been doing the Opus stuff is to have the project files >> expect a build in a parallel checkout. so: >> >> c:\dev\flac\FLAC.sln expects to find an ogg build in >> c:\dev\ogg\win32\VS2010\ >> >> Not as obvious as having a monolithic build, but it seems to work once >>

If you remove the project files, I doubt it's going to make things easier for anyone. You'll probably just increase the number of questions as people struggle to compile using less common and less user-friendly methods, and someone is going to have to maintain that anyway. VS users want VS project files. Plenty of open-source projects provide them. It's not that hard.

I don't know. If that's all it was, why is there a special new property manager to set it? Morten will need to explain what to do in VS2003 to make VS2005 happy. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know >> where to add it. > > > Isn't there a place to

On 2014-06-19 6:01 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Ok, Audacity is not a good example to follow. We need to find out > what some other common used cross platform project is doing. Preferably > more than one project. FWIW, the other xiph codecs have parallel sets of MSVC project files under the win32 directory. We did this because while newer versions can generally open/update older

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it in > VS2003. It shouldn't hurt to define it though, even if VC2003 where it does nothing. Right? -Chris > Morten Ofstad wrote: > >> Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 >>>

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know where to > add it. Isn't there a place to add -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE for the preprocessor? Isn't this all we are talking about, or am I missing something? -Chris >> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: >> >>> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE

_CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it in VS2003. Morten Ofstad wrote: > Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 >> project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they >> will become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and >> solution files cannot coexist in

The new property manager doesn't exist in VS2003 either. Don't know where to add it. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> _CRT_SECURE_NO_DEPRECATE is new for VS2005. Nothing I can do with it >> in VS2003. > > > It shouldn't hurt to define it though, even if VC2003 where it does > nothing. Right? > > -Chris >

Jeff Cohen wrote: > The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 > project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they will > become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and solution files > cannot coexist in the same directories, further complicating matters. The VS2003 project files convert without problems -- you might want to add in

Ok! If there are indeed cross-compiling targets defined, then vs2005 projects probably should be maintained. In any case, this is all up to Jean-Marc, since he's the one that actually has authority to change it :) Jean-Marc -- what's your opinion? On 11/28/07, Aron Rosenberg <arosenberg@sightspeed.com> wrote: > > I pulled the test directory from 2003, but everything else

Hi, Is is possible to have makefiles, batchfiles, whatever that just calls the command-line compilers and doesn't require this huge amount of per-compiler-version crap? Otherwise, I'm seriously considering removing all those project files from the build since time has proven there's just no way to get them up-to-date. Jean-Marc Alexander Chemeris a ?crit : > Hello, > > On

Hello, On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Kerry Bonin <kerry at vscape.com> wrote: > - Anyone else see this? > - Who maintains the Win32 projects (at least the VS2005)? I'd be happy > to work with to solve. > - If nobody is actively maintaining this build, I'd be glad to fix and > contribute back. I'm currently listed as a Win32 build system maintainer, but I

The VS2005 project files are known to not be up-to-date, so I can understand that you'd need to fix some things. Can you verify with an import of the VS2003 project files, that there is no need for any fixes, and just works after importing? Managing multiple project files should be minimized if at all possible. If a straight import of vs2003 project files can be done without any changes

On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have VS2003 >> source code AFAIK, > > No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub directories > which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the > "win32" files in a separate repository if possible. I thought this

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> Two things regarding the new subversion repository :- >> 1) Can you remove lib/CodeGen/ELF - which was a copy of the 'libelf' GNU >> library which got partially deleted. > > I just removed it from the CVS repo. > >> 2) Is there any way make the "Win32" Visual Studio 2003 a separate source >>

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> What is the motivation for this? The Win32 directory doesn't have >>> VS2003 >>> source code AFAIK, >> >> No just the VS2003 project and solution files and a about 30 sub >> directories >> which are not required on *nix platforms. So it would be good to have the >> "win32" files

Tom Grandgent a ?crit : > If you remove the project files, I doubt it's going to make things easier > for anyone. You'll probably just increase the number of questions as > people struggle to compile using less common and less user-friendly > methods, and someone is going to have to maintain that anyway. And how is having out-of-date project files help. > VS users want