RE: [gnome-db] Compiling libgda in cygwin

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 10:25, Andres Moya wrote: 
> El mié, 26-03-2003 a las 13:21, Rodrigo Moya escribió:
> > On Wed, 2003-03-26 at 08:56, Andres Moya wrote:
> > > 
> > > > You might also want to consider compiling with MinGW.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but this is not an option, for now. I would like to continue with
> > > Cygwin, because I have already done quite work with other packages.
> > > 
> > given how the code is written in libgda, which makes it (mostly) not
> > depend at all on a linux/unix system, I still think the best solution
> > for this is to create win32 makefiles, and not use
> > autoconf/automake/libtool at all, which, as we've already seen, makes
> > things difficult.
> > 
> > So, I'd propose to get the makefiles that are in the glib-2.0/gtk-2.0
> > sources, which are done for MS's make and gcc (AFAIR) and use them as
> > templates to create new win32-specific makefiles for libgda. I think
> > this is going to be easier.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you right. Do you mean to still use the
> autoconf/etc. tools for Unix, and to create a whole separated makefile
> for win32, by hand?
yes, as glib/gtk do.

> How difficult and portable would be to make this? This makefile, could
> both be used to generate a native win32 library and a Cygwin one?
iirc, I used glib's win32 makefile as a model for a lib I had to build
in both windows and linux some time ago, and it was a 10 minutes work,
so unless things have radically changed, I gues getting the glib's
makefile and adapting it to build libgda shouldn't be too difficult.

> Sorry if I ask anything absurd, I don't know GNU's build tools very much
> (and, sincerely, it isn't an area I like very much, I spent some years
> working with a similar tool, propietary, on HP-Unix, and became quite
> tired of it :-P).
I know (a bit at least) auto*, the problem is auto* in windows seems a
bit different than on unix, and I myself don't know about those
differences. So, also given that nobody has succeeded in doing it the
auto* way, I guess we could at least try the win32 makefile way.

> Anyway, what's the point on using gnome-autogen instead of the usual
> autogen?
>
the usual autogen.sh was copied/pasted from all GNOME programs, so there
was a decision to provide it in a common package for all GNOME apps,
which is why it is in gnome-common.

>  The standard one works quite well in Cygwin, I have used it to
> build other packages I need for the application I work for
> (http://fact.aspl.es/). Indeed, I have downloaded the source tarball of
> libgda 0.9.0 (that does not use gnome-autogen at all, only the generated
> "configure" script), and have been able to compile it without more
> problems, with a few changes that I saw at this message from Fernando
> Martins:
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-db-list/2002-July/msg00004.html
> 
none of the released tarballs (0.9, 0.10, 0.11) require that file.
It's only needed if you compile from CVS.

cheers