From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31129 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2003 23:16:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31120 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 23:16:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO outbound28-2.lax.untd.com) (64.136.28.160) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 23:16:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 23714 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0000 Received: from 66-52-199-233.sttl.dial.netzero.com (HELO vangogh) (66.52.199.233) by smtp03.lax.untd.com with SMTP; 7 Nov 2003 23:16:33 -0000 From: "Brandon J. Van Every" To: "xconq" Subject: Standardizing the Windows build Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-SW-Source: 2003/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 >From private discussion with Eric, it seems there is no standard, canonical build environment for Xconq on Windows. There aren't even any regular Windows developers, apparently? Xconq development is Linux-centric and that does not result in reliable build procedures under Windows. This is an impediment to Windows developers, such as myself, contributing anything to Xconq. I am willing to do the work of creating MS Visual Studio project files, if we can come to a consensus on what the standards should be. A non-exhaustive list of issues: - Cygwin vs. MinGW installations. When I tried to get Freeciv built with the latter, I had a really lousy experience. - TCL distributions. Eric thinks the TCL binary currently distributed with Cygwin is broken. I'm not sure myself, but I'm utterly unwilling to chase TCL's tail in the absence of a consensus on the build environment. Some options are: Cygwin TCL binary, build TCL from scratch under Cygwin, use the high quality ActiveState Windows native TCL distribution. I personally think the latter should be used because that's what all Windows people who do TCL use. - Weaning Xconq of Unix-specific Cygwin code. I realize that Cygwin is needed because Xconq is fundamentally a Unix app. But I'd like to see the Unix-specific stuff isolated as much as possible. Cygwin compilation perhaps becomes a custom build step in an otherwise MS Visual Studio build. - Religion about commercial IDEs. If most of you think MS Visual Studio is Evil, then we aren't going to get anywhere. Most of us Windoze developers think that being forced to use Unix-ported tools and editors is a PITA. We ain't gonna do it. If you want Windoze developers, IMO the code needs to build in an environment that most Windoze developers are willing to use. - Religion about versions of MS Visual Studio. I have VS6, VS .NET 2002, and VS .NET 2003. I would insist on having 2003. I might be willing to support all 3 builds, but 2003 would be the one that gets the regular testing. Ok, before anyone even wastes time arguing about *those* issues, I think I'd better give you full disclosure on my various development agendas. That way you can make up your mind whether I'd be a welcome contributor or a downright menace. If we're not on the same page, or compatible pages, then open source development becomes a waste of my time compared to proprietary development. First disclosure: I won't write C code. I won't even write C++ code unless it's to heavy duty optimize something. I have 11 years of experience as a 3D graphics optimization jock, and I've learned the error of my ways. I'm only interested in higher level languages nowadays. As far as what I *want* to develop in, that would be Python. As far as what I feel I *need* to develop in to be commercially marketable, that would be C#. The concept of Java has always bored me to tears and still does. You can think of me as a Python guy who's begrudgingly doing C# so he can get gigs in Redmond. Second disclosure: I'm interested in DirectX and .NET stuff. Sure it's not portable. But, if a platform specific set of code is kept small, I don't care. I'm not interested in religion about how you've gotta use portable everywhere for everything. Sometimes it saves work, often times it doesn't. I believe in largely platform independent code, not entirely platform independent code. Third disclosure: as a game designer, I'm not interested in conservatively tweaking and refining Xconq. I'm interested in building new games with Xconq code. I don't really have a handle on your developer culture in this regard yet... it seems you guys create some very different things with this GDL layer of yours. My main drive is to get rid of things in 4X TBS games that waste time. For instance, I can't stand the fact that Civ games take me 16..24 hours to play. So much of that time is boring crap! So, that's who I am. Friend or foe? Cheers, www.indiegamedesign.com Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA Taking risk where others will not.