At 15:32 12.12.03 +0100, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> "Adam D. Moss" <adam@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Out of interest, what's wrong with mingw's toolchain? I
>> > never have tried (and never will!) to build GIMP with it, but
>> > it generally copes adequately with the mildly-unix-centric
>> > codebases I throw at it.
>>
>> I might be wrong since I don't compile on Win32, so perhaps I'm
>> confusing things here. But as far as I can remember the mingw compiler
>> needs it's own set of makefiles. There used to be such makefiles in
>> the GIMP tree but after being unmaintained for a looong time, they
>> have finally been removed.
>
>Sven, stop spreading FUD ;)
>Cygwin and MinGW are the tools of choice on Win32 for compiling GIMP.
>
>There were separate makefiles for Microsofts Visual C, but building with
^^^^ [are, FUD again ?]
>Cygwin's or MinGW's tools (make, gcc, ld, libtool, ...) isn't supposed to be
>different from building with the same tools on Unix systems. There may be
>limitations or bugs, but everything else is the same.
>
AFAIK this is not completely true. Reagrding MinGW you either need
the handwritten makefile.mingw - which were in The Gimp tree until
rotten too much - or a capable shell environment (either MSys or
Cygwin should do).
Note: I'm trying to build The Gimp (including it's dependencies)
on windoze the '*nix style' from time to time, but never managed
to get so far as I do with the M$ tool chain.
[Sure this is in no way representive cause I have a very strong
aversion against 'portable shell scripts' and M4, aka. auto* tools
- especially if they stop to work as advertised, or if the configure
step takes longer than the actual package compile ;-]
Hans
-------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org -----------
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it. -- Dilbert
