Re: Re: compiling gnuplot on Windows & mac/linux

[Mojca M. <moj...@gm...>]

On 11/15/06, Hans-Bernhard Br=F6ker <HBB...@t-...> wrote:
> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> > OK, I spent three or four hours and finnaly got MinGW working on this
> > mac
>
> Now you have me confused.  You obviously have a Windows box at your
> disposition (or how else did you run MS Studio.Net?), and you're about
> to build programs for Windows, which you'll have to test-run at some
> point --- so why on earth did you pick a *Mac* to install and run MinGW o=
n?

I admit, weird indeed.

I've changed my computer a few days ago from dual-boot Linux+Win
(running Win 99% of time) to dual-boot Mac+Win (running Mac 95% of
time). I urgently needed gnuplot and when I changed the machine taking
MS Studio.Net was the fastest way to build it (since I had all the
files ready).

Yesterday somebody asked me for windows binary and the one compiled
with MSVC didn't work on his computer (apart from the fact that GD,
PDF, ... don't work either). Since using MinGW was apparently the only
choice, I decided to try to compile on Mac, which will take me less
effort (once set up) next time when I'll want to create a windows
binary.

About testing ... I often use windows on other computers (and I don't
want to set up all the development tools on every single computer
where I might want to use gnuplot) and since I don't intend to develop
the windows user-interface, it should be enough to test the terminal
in one platform only. Once it's OK, the windows binary should remain
OK after applying new pathes.

> > Now a question: is anyone ready to help me to write a clean makefile
> > for MinGW for cross-compiling (which would be suitable to add to CVS)
> > or does that exist already?
>
> It doesn't exist, but I rather doubt it'd be interesting enough to the
> general public to be worth putting in CVS.  The overwhelming majority of
> people who want to build programs for Windows will be using Windows
> machines to do it.
>
> But feel free to post the modified makefile.mgw on the "Patches" Tracker
> page.

I'll see what I can do. I'm currently trying to figure out how to enable gd=
 ...

> > /usr/bin/automake -> /etc/alternatives/automake
> > /etc/alternatives/automake -> /usr/bin/automake-1.9 (was 1.4a)
> >
> > So I only fixed /etc/alternatives/automake and aclocal.
>
> "Fixed" them --- how?  By modifying those symlinks yourself?

Yes. I had no idea what else to do.

> That's not
> how these things are supposed to be managed.  There's a program for
> that.  It should be called 'alternatives' or similar, and it'll probably
> be in /sbin or /usr/sbin, because only root can usefully run it.

Thanks. There's indeed a program update-alternatives in /usr/sbin.

On 11/15/06, Ethan A Merritt wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:16 am, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> > > It would be extremely useful if developers wouldn't only put source
> > > files on the web, but also binaries, at least for windows.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I was too unclear. I meant it as: it would help a lot if
> > files like the one on
> >     http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=3D2055&packag=
e_id=3D66525
> > (gnuplot 4.2rc1) would also be available in binary form for windows
> > (at least; perhaps also for mac).
>
> Thank you for volunteering.
>
> The current developing team basically doesn't use windows much,
> many of us not at all. So we welcome your assistance in preparing
> binary versions for this awkward platform.

I would be glad to help and submit binaries when needed. At least once
I figure out how to buid help files & gd ...

Mojca