Am 12.01.2013 09:11, schrieb J. C.
Jones:
The
fact that it is not possible to build, say, just applications,
or just drivers, without hunting-and-pecking projects in
the Solution Workspace, is related to problem
No, it's just a missing cmake command to generate a solution file
for applications.
Of course you cannot build applications without building it's
dependencies. And since we build all our dependencies (CRT,
importlibs, certain headers) ourselves, all of these will be put
into a solution for applications.
Having different architectures in the build will most likely never
work, since it requires completely different cmake passes.
Especially for ARM you need to do a cross build, where you first
need to compile the host tools for x86 and then the rest for ARM (I
think I made a configure script for that). I also don't see any
merit in it. Noone usually switches between architectures on the
fly. It's only there, because it's the best way to maintain it in VS
project files, if that is how you organize your build. But we don't
do that, we use cmake files.
“Wow…800-project
solution. Let’s see, x86_32, x86_64, ARM
support..nice…both Debug and Release
present…good good…looks like Solution Workspace mirrors
what is on disk..cool…#include paths in IDE project
settings are relative to root of solution so I can move solution
to another disk if I like…appreciate that…IntelliSense
seems to be working correctly…and this livecd thing…I
guess right-clicking on that and doing Build does
minimum operations necessary to generate a live CD. I wonder
what happens when I try to execute the livecd project
after built. Wow…that is too awesome!!! Ok. Everything makes
sense. I can handle myself from here. Thanks.”
No offence, but a developer that judges a project solely on the fact
that it managed to slap 800 modules into a single VS solution,
rather than by the code or dozens of other factors, should probably
rethink his profession ;-)
I have been workig on a number of different projects, all with
different build systems. Some sucked bad (autoconf shit) other were
ok. ReactOS has the best build system of all of these. And the key
here is simplicity and performance. No manual defining of 100
configuration commands plus 20 minutes over and over repeating test
and configuration steps. It's simple. It builds fast. And it
supports MSVC (WDK and VS from 2010 to 2012) and GCC and works on
Windows/Linux/Mac. VS solution support is just sugar on top of that.
And this is a complete f*cking Operating System and not a shitty
browser.
IMO,
we should give Amine time to get the ReactOS repository into this
state..
Amine already did an awesome job. And delivered. If you need
anything more: "We accept patches!"(tm)
Or ... you could get a bunch of skilled devs that all strongly want
these features and that might motivate someone to work on this.
There's a lot of things that might be interesting for someone. An
ARM port might be interesting, an x64 port might be interesting, a
native DirectX might be interesting, support for WDDM drivers might
be interesting, .... a working Memory Manager that doesn't crash all
the time might be interesting.
And now guess which of these would be considered a priority, and
which of these not.
I guess you'd need to convince someone of the demand / importance or
take things in your own hands.
WBR,
Timo