Things we ought to do to improve our packaging

[Steve Borho]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Adrian Buehlmann <adrian at cadifra.com> wrote:

> On 2013-08-08 06:37, Steve Borho wrote:
> > One suggestion I have, if we try to automate this process in the
> > hg/contrib folder, is that we make an attempt to drop the requirement on
> > Microsoft's C compilers and try to use recent MinGW GCCs to compile the
> > Explorer extension and the Mercurial (and other hg extension) Python
> > extensions.
>
> Why?
>
> MSC is gratis and the standard C compiler on the Windows platform.
>

MSFT is making it harder and harder to install the gratis VC9 compilers
that Python 2.7 requires, that is the primary complication.  Long term, it
would be better not to be dependent on their good nature.


> > We had problems with GCC some 5-6 years ago but perhaps
> > those are all resolved now
>
> ..and in the mean time, "we" need a 64-bit C (C++) compiler.
>
> The standard Windows platform is nowadays x64.
>
> IIRC, last time I checked, there were still problems with MinGW for x64.
> But it's been a while...
>

64bit MinGW (gcc 4.8) is pretty decent these days.


> IIRC C-Python uses the MSC compiler as well for their Windows builds.
>
>
Yep

-- 
Steve Borho
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial-packaging/attachments/20130808/505e4958/attachment-0002.html>