Re: Suggested patches to Pango for Visual Studio builds

[Travis Griggs <tgriggs cincom com>]

On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:

> > Don't want to block this, but it's a maintenance nightmare since it  
> > mirrors
> > list of files, etc.
>
> Yeah, I know... And I am not promising I will keep maintaining it
> either, just wondering whether it would be good to have it in the
> tarball so people who want/need it at least have something to start
> from.
>
> But it might make more sense to have solution / project files for the
> glib/atk/pango/gtk+ stack combined in a separate module instead? (The
> stuff from glib/build/win32 would be moved there, too.)
>
> Yeah, this is what OABuild/OAHBuild/HSBuild tried/tries to do. But I
> think they are a bit on the wrong track; they want to support building
> from a git checkout, while the project files in glib/build/win32, and
> now here for pango, and similar ones I worked on for gtk+, explicitly
> are for builds from tarballs only, with generated files already
> present. (Also, the dependency on bazaar, python and perl doesn't look
> like a good way to attract visual studio -based developers.)


I laud any efforts to make building on other platforms more  
approachable. Every time I try to dabble in these projects (Pango and  
Cairo), the biggest frustrations I've had are with auto tools. I'm  
naive enough to have no clue on whether this particular patch achieves  
that well. I just appreciate the sentiment.

--
Travis Griggs
Objologist
"An idea, like a ghost, must be spoken to a little before it will  
explain itself." - Charles Dickens