I'd love to have a single source too.  Perhaps we could checkin the autogenerated Windows version so that cygwin is only required for people who actually make changes to the makefiles. 

Rick


On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:33 AM, David Ashley <w.david.ashley@gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to give the autotools on Windows another try. The last time
I did this I was still struggling with getting to know the autotools
family of apps so I ran into some roadblocks I did not have enough
knowledge to resolve. Since then I have gained enough experience that I
think I can overcome my original problems.

Of course, the primary problem with using autotools is that Cygwin is a
prerequisite. I do not have a problem with this but others might have.

IMHO having a single build source is the best solution. But that is just
my opinion and I certainly respect the opinion of others.

David Ashley

On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 09:24 -0400, Rick McGuire wrote:
> I've not liked the lack of dependency management in the makefiles used
> for building Windows for quite a while.  David spent quite a bit of
> time trying to get a Windows build working with autoconf and never
> really got things working.  I'm sort of thinking we might be able to
> do this as a manual process by taking the Makefile generated for Linux
> and manually converting it into a Windows makefile.  At first glance,
> this doesn't really look to be that bad.  There are a lot of changes
> to make, but mostly of the repetitive variety.  Once converted, we'll
> have a make file with all of the dependencies created.  This will
> still need to manually updated in the future, but we'll have a make
> file that operates better than the one we're using now (which for all
> intents, is 25 years old).  Hopefully, we'll be able to keep this
> skewing too much from the autoconf generated one.  It might even be an
> interesting exercise to write a tool to sync the dependencies up
> again.  Left as a exercise to the reader!  I'm willing to take a crack
> at converting to see if this is workable.
>
>
> The autoconf generated make file builds all of the project from the
> single makefile, while on Windows, we have separate makefiles for each
> of the subprojects (e.g., various extensions like rxsock, rxmath,
> etc.).  I can go either way on the port, though I suspect as a first
> step, I'll create a combined make.  Note that this will not cover the
> Windows-only extensions because the Linux Makefile does not have
> anything generated for those directories.  Any opinions on the single
> file/multiple file question?
>
>
> Rick
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
> Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
> Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
> Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel