[Olympus developers 28]: Re: cmucltk changes

[Benjamin Frisch]

I am not in favor of introducing a Cygwin dependency as well; however,
I understood the original message to imply that the rebuilt binaries
do not require Cygwin to run.  If the former is true I am ok with a VS
Windows build being pushed off until 2.3; however, I think 1 is ideal
if Cygwin/Unix support for the cmulmtk can be retained along with VS
build support with relative ease in time for 2.2.  (Perhaps, we need a
test framework for this?)

Ben

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Antoine Raux <antoine at cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> Until we have a Linux version of Olympus, I'm in favor of not introducing a
> Cygwin dependency, so I prefer solution 1), although I don't know how hard
> that would be...
>
>  antoine
>
>  TK Harris wrote:
>
> > Recent changes have broken the Visual Studio build of the cmucltk, which
> Olympus depends on. The stable 2.1 branch of Olympus is pegged to an older
> version of the toolkit, so for now only the trunk is affected. I see that
> Alex has improved the cygwin build so that it's well integrated with the
> linux builds, and yet builds native Windows executables, also it looks like
> there are binaries checked in.
> > We can either
> > 1) fix the VS build
> > 2) just use checked-in executables
> > 3) require cygwin for an Olympus build
> >
> > I don't really like any of these options; they each have some negatives.
> I'm open to suggestions.
> >
> > -Thomas
> >
> >
>
>