Things we ought to do to improve our packaging
adrian at cadifra.com
Thu Aug 8 13:18:04 CDT 2013
On 2013-08-08 20:01, Steve Borho wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com
> <mailto:adrian at cadifra.com>> wrote:
> On 2013-08-08 06:37, Steve Borho wrote:
> > One suggestion I have, if we try to automate this process in the
> > hg/contrib folder, is that we make an attempt to drop the
> requirement on
> > Microsoft's C compilers and try to use recent MinGW GCCs to
> compile the
> > Explorer extension and the Mercurial (and other hg extension) Python
> > extensions.
> MSC is gratis and the standard C compiler on the Windows platform.
> MSFT is making it harder and harder to install the gratis VC9 compilers
> that Python 2.7 requires, that is the primary complication.
> Long term,
> it would be better not to be dependent on their good nature.
IMHO, rather FUD-ish.
I'd rather prefer not to depend on a new set of compiler and linker bugs
/ broken libraries/incompatibilities + install hell.
> > We had problems with GCC some 5-6 years ago but perhaps
> > those are all resolved now
> ..and in the mean time, "we" need a 64-bit C (C++) compiler.
> The standard Windows platform is nowadays x64.
> IIRC, last time I checked, there were still problems with MinGW for x64.
> But it's been a while...
> 64bit MinGW (gcc 4.8) is pretty decent these days.
Nice to hear. So, good luck with that.
> IIRC C-Python uses the MSC compiler as well for their Windows builds.
The surely know why :-)
More information about the Mercurial-devel