Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Michael Meeks-5 wrote
> * I was excited about Chocolatey ... eventually I gave up, and moved on to
> manual installation.

As did I. If you look at the history all of the Chocolatey info was recently
added. It seems to cause more problems than it solves. Should we should move
it off into it's own section at the end until it offers a smooth experience?


Michael Meeks-5 wrote
> *  Recommending a known-good Visual Studio
>
>      The LODE page for some reason recommends Visual Studio 2015 - three 
> times, though there is 2013 in the small print. 

Again, the VS2015 info was all added with Chocolatey. The  old LODE wiki
page recommend 2013.
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=Development/lode&oldid=123276>  
Also the main Windows dev page also makes it clear that 2013 is the
preferred version. 

That said I'd rather see a VS2015 Jenkins or Tinderbox rather than steer
people away from it. I've been building both 32/64 VS2015 builds regularly
all year long.


Michael Meeks-5 wrote
>  * Antivirus 

The main  Windows dev pages covers this topic thoroughly.
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/BuildingOnWindows#BitDefender_.2F_other_Anti-Virus_.2F_security_tools_breaking_the_build>
  

Since you've verified it's a problem, please add McAffe to the list that's
already there.






--
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Recommended-build-instructions-tp4193014p4193053.html
Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.