Re: Quantifying the time overhead of Cygwin make

I am not trying to hijack this thread, but I am part of another project
where we build for windows on linux boxes. Have you guys considered looking
into building for windows on Linux?


On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Tor Lillqvist <tml@iki.fi> wrote:
> > Are you sure GnuWin32 actually is something even worth considering?
> > Cygwin at least has a semi-decent package management even if it is a
> > bit slower.
> If I understand correctly the exercise is about replacing gmake itself
> from a cygwin-running version to a native-running version of gmake
> the need for cygwin in general is still there...
>
> That being said,, reading the patch it seems there is no need for a 'flag
> day'
> most of the change in configure.ac are -u + -d => -sm and the need for
> -m or not in same case
> It should be possible to make that an autogen option, to allow a
> non-distruptive migration
>
> I'll test the native gmake on my windows tb, and if that works, I'll
> have a stab at the patch to make it support both mode
>
> Norbert
> _______________________________________________
> LibreOffice mailing list
> LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice



-- 
Jonathan Aquilina