rbuild msvc backend

[Ged Murphy]

I've gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for rbuild.
Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original design and
was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was adding
support for VS 2010.

Anyway, whilst I'm doing this I think it's a good time assess what we want
to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002
and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the
complexity of the module

I'm proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any
reasons against.

Ged.

[Zachary Gorden]

Any reason to still keep 2005?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for
> rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original
> design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was
> adding support for VS 2010.
>
> Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what we want
> to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002
> and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the
> complexity of the module
>
> I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any
> reasons against.
>
> Ged.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged Murphy]

I'd imagine a lot of larger corporations still use 2005 as their development
environments are more tightly controlled.

I didn't want to alienate these users.

Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key.

I'm going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Zachary Gorden
Sent: 02 December 2009 15:23
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend

Any reason to still keep 2005?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:

I've gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for rbuild.
Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original design and
was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was adding
support for VS 2010.

Anyway, whilst I'm doing this I think it's a good time assess what we want
to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002
and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the
complexity of the module

I'm proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any
reasons against.

Ged.

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key. 
> I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.

While you're in removal mood, you could as well delete the entire "Test"
module type along with the TestSupportCode class and everything referencing
to it :)

This module type requires a fundamental regression testing library by
Casper, which was never really used and has already been deleted long time
ago.
As all our regression tests are now based on the Wine regression testing
library, there is also no reason to ever revive Casper's version.

Best regards,

Colin

[KJK::Hyperion]

Colin Finck wrote:
> > Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key. 
> > I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.
>
> While you're in removal mood, you could as well delete the entire "Test"
> module type along with the TestSupportCode class and everything referencing
> to it :)

Don't, I already did it. Will commit soon

[Ged Murphy]

Do you have any changes related to the msvc backend?
I've completely restructured it today, but I'm going to put it on hold if it's going to cause merge conflicts.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of KJK::Hyperion
Sent: 02 December 2009 21:08
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend

Colin Finck wrote:
> > Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key. 
> > I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.
>
> While you're in removal mood, you could as well delete the entire "Test"
> module type along with the TestSupportCode class and everything referencing
> to it :)

Don't, I already did it. Will commit soon

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[KJK::Hyperion]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> Do you have any changes related to the msvc backend?

none at all. I will probably change things about the rbuild data model
itself, but it's nothing you should concern yourself with, I can handle it

[Love Nystrom]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> I’d imagine a lot of larger corporations still use 2005 as their 
> development environments are more tightly controlled.
>
> I didn’t want to alienate these users.
>
> Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key.
>
> I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.
>
> Speak now or forever hold your peace.

While I still use VC6 a lot, for various reasons, I don't use it for 
ReactOS.
However, I beg you to not remove the possibility to generate project and
workspace files for Code::Blocks.

A late-comer in the FOSS arena , I am just now discovering it's usefulness.
(I don't even have the newer IDE's you all seem to favor.)
If you haven't the time to maintain it, consider chucking it my way.
I'll do my best (after I get to understand it) to keep it in shape.

My argument for Codeblocks support is based on *source availability*.
While it may not have all the bells and whistles of full-blown commercial
products like VS2oo5/2oo8, it is open source, with has obvious benefits.
VS may be fancy, but we *do not have the source for it*.

I'm still trying to get to grips with a project as complex as ROS, and
I find the ability to work with it as a CB workspace/projects
superlatively useful, even if it loads a bit slowly.

ROS is an open source project, built with an open source compiler,
and removing support for a very good open source IDE would
be a tragic mistake IMHO.

Best Regards // Love

[Colin Finck]

Love Nystrom wrote:
> I beg you to not remove the possibility to generate 
> project and workspace files for Code::Blocks.
> From what I know, Code::Blocks can open .vcproj files generated by the MSVC

backend.
So no need to keep the additional Code::Blocks-specific backend.

Best regards,

Colin

[Love Nystrom]

Colin Finck wrote:
> Love Nystrom wrote:
> > I beg you to not remove the possibility to generate 
> > project and workspace files for Code::Blocks.
>
> From what I know, Code::Blocks can open .vcproj files generated by the MSVC
> backend.

What VS version does it support ? 2oo3/2oo5/2oo8 ??
> So no need to keep the additional Code::Blocks-specific backend.

Is it really so much work to have true FOSS support ?
How do these back ends work ?
Translating rbuild files?

// Love

[Ged Murphy]

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Love Nystrom
Sent: 02 December 2009 18:15
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend
> Is it really so much work to have true FOSS support ?

This is true FOSS support. As Colin says codeblocks can open vcproj files. 
What's the point in us trying to maintain a backend when codeblocks provides
the support for us
> How do these back ends work ?
> Translating rbuild files?

Yes.

The codeblocks backend is very incomplete and very old.
It should have been removed a long time ago.
Anyway, it's gone now :)

[Sir Gallantmon]

The import support for MSVC projects is not perfect, so it shouldn't be
relied on. Never should you make the assumption that you can rely on any
form of import system.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Love Nystrom
> Sent: 02 December 2009 18:15
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend
> > Is it really so much work to have true FOSS support ?
>
> This is true FOSS support. As Colin says codeblocks can open vcproj files.
> What's the point in us trying to maintain a backend when codeblocks
> provides
> the support for us
> > How do these back ends work ?
> > Translating rbuild files?
>
> Yes.
>
> The codeblocks backend is very incomplete and very old.
> It should have been removed a long time ago.
> Anyway, it's gone now :)
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Daniel Reimer]

Quite strange. Some hours ago you did not even know of the backend and 
now you use it? Fine, ok. I will believe this for now. But it will die 
regardless what you say. c::b is not able to fully build ROS anyway due 
to missing functions, thus its useless and can die.

Sir Gallantmon schrieb:
> The import support for MSVC projects is not perfect, so it shouldn't 
> be relied on. Never should you make the assumption that you can rely 
> on any form of import system.
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ged Murphy <[e-mail] 
> mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> [mailto:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>] On
> Behalf Of Love Nystrom
> Sent: 02 December 2009 18:15
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend
>
> > Is it really so much work to have true FOSS support ?
> This is true FOSS support. As Colin says codeblocks can open
> vcproj files.
> What's the point in us trying to maintain a backend when
> codeblocks provides
> the support for us
>
> > How do these back ends work ?
> > Translating rbuild files?
> Yes.
>
> The codeblocks backend is very incomplete and very old.
> It should have been removed a long time ago.
> Anyway, it's gone now :)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Daniel Reimer]

Oh, nvm. I misread you mail.

But the rest is still right. c::b backend is useless

Daniel Reimer schrieb:
> Quite strange. Some hours ago you did not even know of the backend and
> now you use it? Fine, ok. I will believe this for now. But it will die
> regardless what you say. c::b is not able to fully build ROS anyway due
> to missing functions, thus its useless and can die.
>
> Sir Gallantmon schrieb:
> > The import support for MSVC projects is not perfect, so it shouldn't
> > be relied on. Never should you make the assumption that you can rely
> > on any form of import system.
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ged Murphy<[e-mail]
> > mailto:[e-mail]>  wrote:
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: [e-mail]
> >  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >  [mailto:[e-mail]
> >  <mailto:[e-mail]>] On
> >  Behalf Of Love Nystrom
> >  Sent: 02 December 2009 18:15
> >  To: ReactOS Development List
> >  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend
> >
> >  >  Is it really so much work to have true FOSS support ?
> >  This is true FOSS support. As Colin says codeblocks can open
> >  vcproj files.
> >  What's the point in us trying to maintain a backend when
> >  codeblocks provides
> >  the support for us
> >
> >  >  How do these back ends work ?
> >  >  Translating rbuild files?
> >  Yes.
> >
> >  The codeblocks backend is very incomplete and very old.
> >  It should have been removed a long time ago.
> >  Anyway, it's gone now :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Zachary Gorden]

@Daniel

You know, this attitude isn't helping.

@Love

To specifically address the points raised, the fact that something is open
source does not automatically elevate it in priority for this project.
Quite a few of us work for companies that make heavy use of Visual Studio
and appreciate all the functionality in it.  The fact that the source code
for CB is available actually doesn't add much favor to it when we evaluate
which tools to support.  Our primary concern is what tools can we use and
what does the job the best.  Of the IDEs we can use, there's quite a few,
ranging from VS to CB to even Eclipse and Netbeans.  The one that would to
the job the best, in our view, is VS, so we will choose it.  If few people
on the team even touch CB or the other IDEs, then there is little motivation
to continue supporting it, especially if that support was broken to begin
with.  You claim there is a strategic reason to provide support for open
source platforms.  In this instance, the project feels that that strategic
reason is not important enough to merit continued effort.  If you feel
strongly enough to try and make it work, then go for it, but the rest of us
aren't terribly bothered by not having access to VS' source code.

Also, our intent is that we also support using the Express editions of
Visual Studio, so getting access to VS should not be that hard unless you
refuse to work on Windows.

[Love Nystrom]

Zachary Gorden wrote:
> To specifically address the points raised, the fact that something is 
> open source does not automatically elevate it in priority for this 
> project.  Quite a few of us work for companies that make heavy use of 
> Visual Studio and appreciate all the functionality in it.  The fact 
> that the source code for CB is available actually doesn't add much 
> favor to it when we evaluate which tools to support.  Our primary 
> concern is what tools can we use and what does the job the best.  Of 
> the IDEs we can use, there's quite a few, ranging from VS to CB to 
> even Eclipse and Netbeans.  The one that would to the job the best, in 
> our view, is VS, so we will choose it.  If few people on the team even 
> touch CB or the other IDEs, then there is little motivation to 
> continue supporting it, especially if that support was broken to begin 
> with.  You claim there is a strategic reason to provide support for 
> open source platforms.  In this instance, the project feels that that 
> strategic reason is not important enough to merit continued effort.  
> If you feel strongly enough to try and make it work, then go for it, 
> but the rest of us aren't terribly bothered by not having access to 
> VS' source code.

Yes, I quite understand your point, of course. The benefit of being able
to use a single IDE for both daytime work and FOSS efforts is obvious.
I was just a bit concerned we might end up in a situation where we are
*required* to use a commercial product to build our open source project,
or even work conveniently with the source.
But then again, we're talking about the working environment,
not the compiler, so I guess my concern is a bit misplaced .. :-)
> Also, our intent is that we also support using the Express editions 
> of Visual Studio, so getting access to VS should not be that hard 
> unless you refuse to work on Windows.

It seems like Microsoft no longer offer VS Express for download..
At least I couldn't find it when I went looking.
I'll try to make do with CB.

Best Regards // Love

[Ged Murphy]

It's the first result returned in google from a 'visual studio' search.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=visu...
oogle+Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=

http://www.microsoft.com/exPress/

Also, the main site now has 2010 beta 2 download, for all products not just
express.

Ged.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Love Nystrom
Sent: 03 December 2009 15:39
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend

It seems like Microsoft no longer offer VS Express for download..
At least I couldn't find it when I went looking.
I'll try to make do with CB.

[Love Nystrom]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> http://www.microsoft.com/exPress/
> Also, the main site now has 2010 beta 2 download, for all products not just
> express.

Heh.. Silly me.. I was trying to find it by searching on MS web sites.
I should have known better.
Thanx for the pointer.

Love

[Ged Murphy]

I've just tried running 'make cb' from both the cmd environment and the
powershell environment and it doesn't do anything on either.
I then tried running the following :
PS C:\MyFiles\ReactOS\Source\Trunk\reactos> rbuild.exe
-rC:\MyFiles\ReactOS\Source\Trunk\reactos\ReactOS-i386.rbuild -DARCH=i386
-voversionconfiguration cb
And it started generating the files and then crashed.....

So either my environments are broken or all the people who stated they use
it in actual fact don't...
Christoph, did it ever work?

Assuming my environments are broken, and the fact that people requested that
we keep it so they can improve it, I'll keep the code::blocks backend for a
little longer in the hope that some patches may arrive to make it usable.

If nothing arrives within the next month then I think it's safe to say no
one uses it and it's redundant code.

Ged.

[Daniel Reimer]

Hmm, three weeks ago, it worked for sure. That was the last time I tried it.

Ged Murphy schrieb:
> I've just tried running 'make cb' from both the cmd environment and the
> powershell environment and it doesn't do anything on either.
> I then tried running the following :
> PS C:\MyFiles\ReactOS\Source\Trunk\reactos>  rbuild.exe
> -rC:\MyFiles\ReactOS\Source\Trunk\reactos\ReactOS-i386.rbuild -DARCH=i386
> -voversionconfiguration cb
> And it started generating the files and then crashed.....
>
> So either my environments are broken or all the people who stated they use
> it in actual fact don't...
> Christoph, did it ever work?
>
> Assuming my environments are broken, and the fact that people requested that
> we keep it so they can improve it, I'll keep the code::blocks backend for a
> little longer in the hope that some patches may arrive to make it usable.
>
> If nothing arrives within the next month then I think it's safe to say no
> one uses it and it's redundant code.
>
> Ged.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Love Nystrom]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> I've just tried running 'make cb' from both the cmd environment and the
> powershell environment and it doesn't do anything on either.

It worked like a charm about two-three weeks ago.
Maybe your environment got clobbered, or 'make cb' broke in the last few 
weeks.
> Assuming my environments are broken, and the fact that people requested that
> we keep it so they can improve it, I'll keep the code::blocks backend for a
> little longer in the hope that some patches may arrive to make it usable.

Thank you. I will start looking into it asap.
Sir Gallantmon might wanna lend a hand.

Best Regards // Love

[Sir Gallantmon]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Love Nystrom [e-mail] wrote:
> > Assuming my environments are broken, and the fact that people requested
>
> that
> > we keep it so they can improve it, I'll keep the code::blocks backend for
>
> a
> > little longer in the hope that some patches may arrive to make it usable.
>
> Thank you. I will start looking into it asap.
> Sir Gallantmon might wanna lend a hand.
>
> Best Regards // Love

I would love to.. If I understood rbuild, then I could see what I could do
to it.

[Alex Ionescu]

If anyone uses the 2003 Toolkit, you do know the latest Windows SDK
gives you essentiall a "2008 Toolkit", as does the WDK.

Just saying.

I think the latest Windows SDK even ships with MSBUILD, which can
build .vcproj files.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Daniel Reimer
[e-mail] wrote:
> Oh, nvm. I misread you mail.
>
> But the rest is still right. c::b backend is useless
>
> Daniel Reimer schrieb:
> > Quite strange. Some hours ago you did not even know of the backend and
> > now you use it? Fine, ok. I will believe this for now. But it will die
> > regardless what you say. c::b is not able to fully build ROS anyway due
> > to missing functions, thus its useless and can die.
> >
> > Sir Gallantmon schrieb:
> > > The import support for MSVC projects is not perfect, so it shouldn't
> > > be relied on. Never should you make the assumption that you can rely
> > > on any form of import system.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ged Murphy<[e-mail]
> > > mailto:[e-mail]>  wrote:
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >      From: [e-mail]
> > >      mailto:[e-mail]
> > >      [mailto:[e-mail]
> > >      mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >      Behalf Of Love Nystrom
> > >      Sent: 02 December 2009 18:15
> > >      To: ReactOS Development List
> > >      Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend
> > >
> > > >  Is it really so much work to have true FOSS support ?
> > >      This is true FOSS support. As Colin says codeblocks can open
> > >      vcproj files.
> > >      What's the point in us trying to maintain a backend when
> > >      codeblocks provides
> > >      the support for us
> > >
> > > >  How do these back ends work ?
> > >      >  Translating rbuild files?
> > >      Yes.
> > >
> > > The codeblocks backend is very incomplete and very old.
> > >      It should have been removed a long time ago.
> > >      Anyway, it's gone now :)
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >      Ros-dev mailing list
> > >      [e-mail]:[e-mail]
> > >      http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Sir Gallantmon wrote:
> The import support for MSVC projects is not perfect, so it shouldn't
> be relied on.

Well, then it should be the Code::Blocks people who better improve their
import system.
It would benefit them more than us, because they would improve the
compatibility with lots of MSVC projects out there.

If we would have enough manpower to maintain the Code::Blocks backend and
see the advantages in using it, we would most-likely keep it. But as there
is already a consent among the devs that this backend is a candidate for
deletion, it should be obvious that we don't have the manpower.
The Code::Blocks people should rather have it, because they can exclusively
focus on creating an IDE while we currently need to care about Build
systems, code all the way up from kernel-mode to user-mode, the Website
components, etc with just a small team.

Just my 2 cents for justifying in detail why we're removing the backend.

Best regards,

Colin

[Sir Gallantmon]

FYI: I did know about the C::B backend. I knew for a LONG time about it. I
started downloading and building ReactOS and trying it out around the 0.2.9
release, and I already knew that the C::B backend was not fully functional.

The main flaw with the MSVC import system is that it doesn't translate the
compiler options over, all it does is stick them under custom options and
wipe the option set clean. If the projects are really simple, it sets some
options (like if the project is for a DLL, it sets the options suitable for
a DLL, but lots of cleanup has to be done).

I actually wanted to try to understand rbuild to see whether I could improve
C::B support or convert it to cmake so that Cmake could be used to generate
C::B project files. The thing is, I don't know anything about rbuild. I have
asked in IRC before, but I usually don't get any useful answers from there,
and the wiki isn't very helpful either.

If you want to rag on C::B's import system, then improve it! After all,
doesn't every OSS dev that doesn't or can't do something say "Patches
Welcome!" As much as I hate that phrase, it's appropriate to fling it at
someone who gripes about an open source program and doesn't want to do
anything about it.

You know what... Forget it, rbuild is probably going to wind up only being a
wrapper around the MSVC buildsystem anyway, since it seems it can be
justified that all other systems can be ripped out because "importing MSVC
projects is possible." Nevermind that importing MSVC projects has never been
reliable in any alternative IDE.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> Sir Gallantmon wrote:
> > The import support for MSVC projects is not perfect, so it shouldn't
> > be relied on.
>
> Well, then it should be the Code::Blocks people who better improve their
> import system.
> It would benefit them more than us, because they would improve the
> compatibility with lots of MSVC projects out there.
>
> If we would have enough manpower to maintain the Code::Blocks backend and
> see the advantages in using it, we would most-likely keep it. But as there
> is already a consent among the devs that this backend is a candidate for
> deletion, it should be obvious that we don't have the manpower.
> The Code::Blocks people should rather have it, because they can exclusively
> focus on creating an IDE while we currently need to care about Build
> systems, code all the way up from kernel-mode to user-mode, the Website
> components, etc with just a small team.
>
> Just my 2 cents for justifying in detail why we're removing the backend.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Sir Gallantmon]

I use the codeblocks backend. Dev-C++ one can die a quick and painful death.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> I’d imagine a lot of larger corporations still use 2005 as their
> development environments are more tightly controlled.
>
> I didn’t want to alienate these users.
>
> Anyway, everything below msvc8 is now falling foul to my delete key.
>
> I’m going to do the same with the entire codeblocks and devcpp backends.
>
> Speak now or forever hold your peace.
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
> Behalf Of *Zachary Gorden
> *Sent:* 02 December 2009 15:23
> *To:* ReactOS Development List
> *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend
>
> Any reason to still keep 2005?
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
>
> I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for rbuild.
> Our current implementation had completely outgrown its original design and
> was becoming very difficult to manage, as highlighted when I was adding
> support for VS 2010.
>
> Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what we want
> to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002
> and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the
> complexity of the module
>
> I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone has any
> reasons against.
>
> Ged.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Maya Posch]

2005 is very commonly used. 2008 is quite poorly supported.

I can definitely understand removing support for 2003 and older as those 
are very much deprecated. My company uses 2005 and I know that many 
others do as well.

Maya

Zachary Gorden wrote:
> Any reason to still keep 2005?
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Ged Murphy <[e-mail] 
> mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
> I’ve gone down the path of virtually rewriting the msvc backend for
> rbuild. Our current implementation had completely outgrown its
> original design and was becoming very difficult to manage, as
> highlighted when I was adding support for VS 2010.
>
>
>
> Anyway, whilst I’m doing this I think it’s a good time assess what
> we want to support. We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual
> Studio .NET 2002 and Visual Studio.NET 2003. This is a waste of time
> IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module
>
> I’m proposing to remove support for these 3 products unless anyone
> has any reasons against.
>
>
>
> Ged.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual

Studio.NET 2003.
> This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

On top of this, the compilers of these three versions don't support variadic
macros, which we use pretty often in our headers. (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177415%28VS.80%29.aspx)
So in any case, it would be hard to ever get them to compile ReactOS code
properly.

You have my OK for removing the support.

Best regards,

Colin

[Sir Gallantmon]

I think we should still at least support the MSVC 2003 Toolkit. I use it for
various stuff I have to compile with MSVC, because it is so much lighter and
I can add what I need to it easily.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> Ged Murphy wrote:
> > We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual
>
> Studio.NET 2003.
> > This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module
>
> On top of this, the compilers of these three versions don't support
> variadic
> macros, which we use pretty often in our headers. (see
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177415%28VS.80%29.aspx)
> So in any case, it would be hard to ever get them to compile ReactOS code
> properly.
>
> You have my OK for removing the support.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Ged Murphy]

We didn't support the toolkit in the first place, only the ability to
generate vcproj and sln files.

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Sir Gallantmon
Sent: 02 December 2009 15:42
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] rbuild msvc backend

I think we should still at least support the MSVC 2003 Toolkit. I use it for
various stuff I have to compile with MSVC, because it is so much lighter and
I can add what I need to it easily.

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:

Ged Murphy wrote:
> We currently support Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002 and Visual

Studio.NET 2003.
> This is a waste of time IMO and only adds to the complexity of the module

On top of this, the compilers of these three versions don't support variadic
macros, which we use pretty often in our headers. (see
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177415%28VS.80%29.aspx)
So in any case, it would be hard to ever get them to compile ReactOS code
properly.

You have my OK for removing the support.

Best regards,

Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev