README.w32 #194
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#194
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
As discovered at the hack-a-thon, zfec requies c99 and MS never plans to support c99. This patch (should) make zfec c89 compliant without any significant change in runtime or memory behevaiour (yay alloca).
You should probably run unittests if you have any. I was able to compile and run tahoe just fine, but that is by no means a full test.
Attachment c89.diff (7868 bytes) added
c89 diff
Thank you for the patch! I'll accept it into the source code immediately, but there are a few other things we should do:
Can you give me a reference for Microsoft's position on C99? (That still makes me sad. I think C99 is nice.) Anyway, I'd like to have a link to Microsoft's statement on it to reference in the future. Also, I suppose, if their stated reason is "lack of requests from customers", then I guess I could as a paying customer of Microsoft developer tools request that they add C99 support.
We could use a Windows buildslave, see http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/7#comment:17
Somebody should update the [README]source:README and the [README.w32]source:README.w32 to explain how you can, in fact, build tahoe with the Microsoft tools.
Thanks!
We now have e-mail from trac working, so ghazel will hopefully receive an e-mail note.
Mike Booker has agreed to do #3 -- update the READMEs to explain how to build with Microsoft tools. Mike -- is that right? You are going to do this?
My second request -- a Windows buildslave -- has been satisfied. Although note that this is a Windows buildslave which uses cygwin build tools. There is an open ticket to create a Windows buildslave that uses Microsoft build tools: #230.
My first request -- a link to Microsoft's official position on supporting C99 -- remains unresolved. I would like to be able to write an effective mail saying "I am a Microsoft customer, and I request this feature.", and to facilitate other people who want C99 support to do the same.
Mike is working on the third request -- updating the
README.w32
. (Possibly he will even create aREADME.w32.VisualStudio
so that people who are going to do the all-cygwin way and the cygwin-tools-to-build-native-objects way can have their own path through the instructions.)c89 patch for zfecto README.w32I'm going to update our docs to explain that building with Microsoft tools is currently not supported because of pyOpenSSL.
RobK made some good updates to docs:README.win32 yesterday. It needs a lot more work (structure -- separating cygwin from Windows-native, probably, and perhaps HTML-formatting), but I'm bumping this ticket out of 0.7.0 now.
Documenting our build process is one of those things that isn't actually a requirement for the Allmydata 3.0 product, but which we should not put off, so I'm putting this ticket into 0.8.0.
Assigning to RobK. Rob: feel free to bump it to a future Milestone, close it, etc. as appropriate.
also fix up (or kill) source:docs/install-details.html
For the moment I have removed README.win32 and docs/install-detailed.html from the source tree and I'm bumping this issue to 1.1.1. Actually I'm closing this as a duplicate of #282 (more detailed and targeted docs about installing from source).