Re: Makefile vs LUA_PATH inconsistency

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez <javier@guerrag.com> wrote:

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

I don't understand this. The way that the Lua tar unpacks now, setting up Lua is crazy simple. It only requires that you remove the luac.c file from lua.exe project. Also, there is a compiler warning flag (which CL helpfully reports) that happens, but nothing fatal.

I'm happy to provide mine, but I think there is already one out there (lua use to have an one in an etc directory that I couldn't find, last time I checked) and I'm sure that others could provide even more helpful versions.

Visual Studio project files are MSBUILD scripts, which play the role of Make. They even ability to run arbitrary shell commands for installation targets, such as setting the path or whatever else you may want.. 

It is lingua franca on Windows.

-Andrew