RE: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Javier Guerra Giraldez
> Sent: dinsdag 20 mei 2014 15:49
> To: Lua mailing list
> Subject: Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency
> 
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@trms.com>
> wrote:
> > Personally, I'd rather you got rid of that target and included a decent
> > Visual Studio 2010+ project file.
> 
> 
> i'd vote the exact opposite (not that voting has any value...).
> 
> building a release application with VS for more than a single windows
> version is a nightmare of runtime libs.  in two different teams where
> i've stepped in when most of the code was already written we spent so
> much (late) time trying to make it work that in the end it was faster
> to adapt the code to compile with MinGW.  in at least one of those
> there was an experienced windows-only C++ developer that still
> couldn't believe it was so hard to do.
> 
> i guess most of his previous releases were for XP-only, but when win 7
> came in, it became impossible to support both with the same package.
> Well, i guess it was possible somehow, but we had to meet a deadline
> and the only way we found was to escape VShell
> 
> hasn't the LfW package passed through a similar torture?
> 
> --
> Javier

This is exactly why LuaDist and LuaRocks both have been moving away from Visual Studio (though LR supports it, and maybe LuaDist as well?)

Removing MinGW would be a huge step back imo.


Thijs