Jon S. Berndt wrote:
> Is cygwin still supported as a build environment for FlightGear? Or, would
> it be possible/easier to get a version that works with MS VC++ 2008
I haven't built using Cygwin for a while now. I migrated to MSVC9 because,
while FG built OK, OSG wouldn't build with the then current version of gcc
included in Cygwin. I'm not sure if that situation still pertains.
It is relatively easy to build with MSVC9 - import the 7.1 project files
maintained by Fred in CVS. The MSVC8 files in CVS are hopelessly out of
date. The first build is a bit painful - getting the right
dependencies/paths etc. Thereafter it's a doddle, you just need to watch out
for new files. Sometimes authors forget the necessary Windows stuff (no
names no pack drill), but Fred is usually on the case with 24 hrs.
Given that MSVC9 is free, and is an excellent editing environment, I would
not envisage going back to Cygwin.
On Saturday 27 June 2009 22:41:36 Vivian Meazza wrote:
> I haven't built using Cygwin for a while now. I migrated to MSVC9 because,
> while FG built OK, OSG wouldn't build with the then current version of gcc
> included in Cygwin. I'm not sure if that situation still pertains.
FWIW, I've been to keep FlightGear and SimGear cygwin compatible until up to
about a year ago. I don't even know wether I ever tried to build OSG. Except
for OSG, maintaining flightgear / simgear cygwin compatibility isn't that
hard; however the main reason for giving this a very low priority is that the
resulting code is just horribly slow, compared to a native build. Combined
with the fact that my only usable windows machine is from the stone age
(2003), this doesn't really help in running flightgear.
For the sake of uncovering bugs, etc, it would be nice to maintain cygwin
compatibility, but for all practical reasons, I would go with Vivian's