[PATCH 0/2] Compilation warning fixes

[Felipe Contreras]

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Tomasz Wasilczyk <twasilczyk at pidgin.im> wrote:
> 12 maj 2014 08:35 "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras at gmail.com>
> napisał(a):
>
>
>> I've no idea why people are interested in
>> libpurple-mini, but it seems there's quite a few.
>
> Isn't it enough to compile official Pidgin with congifure switches that
> disables Pidgin and Finch? I'm just curious.

That might work in Linux, but I'm not so sure it would be so easy to
compile for Windows.

Moreover, I haven't actually tried it, but I bet my Makefile is at
least an order of magnitude faster.

>> BTW. I saw in the archives some talk to use autotools for building on
>> Windows which seems the absolute worst thing to do.
>
> Some Pidgin devs also state that. But I still have no idea *why* is it the
> worst thing to do. If we provide a repository with mingw dependencies it
> will be repeatable. The only disadvantage I see is a longer build time on
> Cygwin. But Cygwin is already a disaster.

Have actually tried to run autotools in Windows? There's no perl,
there's no m4. I wouldn't dream of doing that, particularly when pure
make works just fine.

And no, I wouldn't want to use cygwin either.

To be honest I'm not particularly interested in building on Windows,
but cross-compiling for Windows. I've worked all my professional life
on embedded systems, and I can assure you; autotools are the worst for
cross-compiling.

>> You could take a
>> look at libpurple-mini's Makefile to see how it would be possible ans
>> easy to have a build system that works for both Windows and UNIX
>> systems, it's simple, readable and fast.
>
> Do you maintain three buildsystems (Makefile, Makefile.am, Makefile.mingw)
> separately?

Just a single Makefile, that's all that is needed.

> I looked at the one you mentioned and I'm not sure if it handles
> every quirk of every unix we build for.

That's the whole reason you use GLib.

-- 
Felipe Contreras