"Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> writes:
> The main difference between what I'm trying now from most of what I've
> seen before is that I *don't* want to create a separate build
> environment that needs to be maintained. Instead have a conversion
> script from our current one to a VC compatible one.
This is definitely the only way that the project will fly --- there's
no way we're going to duplicate our forest of Makefiles in a different
format that has to be hand-maintained. If Magnus can make a conversion
script work, though, I think we can accept that.
We'll need a VC buildfarm member in place to catch us anytime we change
the Makefiles in a way that the script doesn't understand. Before the
buildfarm existed I'd have been skeptical of whether even the
conversion-script approach would be viable in the long run, but with
timely info about breakages I think it can work.
BTW, has anyone looked at the possibility of driving VC from gmake,
so that we can continue to use the same Makefiles? Or is that just
out of the question?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2006-04-24 21:09:18|
|Subject: Re: Building with Visual C++ |
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2006-04-24 20:25:48|
|Subject: Re: Building with Visual C++|