On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Vlada Macek wrote: > Peter 'Luna' Runestig wrote: > > > I don't know. I spent a couple of hours, trying to work around > > MinGW's limitations when it comes to CryptoAPI, but I just ended up > > in dead ends. > > Just a thought: Maybe this addon can be made as a dynamic plug-in. That > way both could be compiled in two different compilers and there is no > need to port the code for MinGW. The downside of such approach would be > that James will not probably support it. > > But if it wont change often, it can be shipped as a 3rd party DLL or > .so... Maybe in the future there will be some more opportunities to do > it this way...
I agree. I think this patch is important enough that if we can't get it building with MinGW, the DLL approach may be the best alternative. James
