Win32 build

Marcus Brinkmann marcus.brinkmann at
Tue Jun 8 20:10:40 CEST 2004

At Mon,  7 Jun 2004 19:47:38 -0700,
low halo, Defender of Truth and Liberty wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> > I can't really see us baby-sitting hand-written Makefiles for
> > Windows.
> Can _I_ baby-sit the Windows Makefiles?  My project is very
> dependent upon a working Win32 version, and so you can count on
> me sticking around.

Well, of course you can babysit them.  But the requirements for
inclusion into our main source tree include that we are willing to
accept responsibility for the code and maintain it even if you abandon

This alone is not a reason against including it per se, but it
increases the barrier.  The real reason not to include it is that we
_want_ to use autoconf consistently.  It's the right thing to do, and
there should be no major obstacle in the way.

I don't know why you think that this is any harder than writing custom
makefiles.  I know that autoconf has a somewhat steep learning curve,
but by all means, if you stumble upon something that you can't easily
resolve with the existing examples in gpg or with the instructions in
the manual, you are more than welcome to raise them here on the
mailing list so we can help you out or discuss alternatives.  Everyone
of us had their own hair-pulling autoconf adventure, but that's no
reason to just bypass it a priori.


More information about the Gcrypt-devel mailing list