dean [aserd...@cloudbasesolutions.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:32 AM
> To: Gurucharan Shetty
> Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Autoconf limits on Windows
>
> Super. I will give it another go tomorrow :).
>
> Thanks Gurucharan.
>
>
> K
...@openvswitch.org] on behalf of
Alin Serdean [aserd...@cloudbasesolutions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:32 AM
To: Gurucharan Shetty
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Autoconf limits on Windows
Super. I will give it another go tomorrow :).
Thanks Gurucharan.
Kind Regards,
Alin
t; make[2]: *** [utilities/ovs-appctl.exe] Error 1
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/aserdean/2_12_2013/openvswitch'
>> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/aserdean/2_12_2013/openvswitch'
>> make: *** [all] Error 2
>
> What
e] Error 1
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/aserdean/2_12_2013/openvswitch'
>> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/aserdean/2_12_2013/openvswitch'
>> make: *** [all] Error 2
>
> What does 'which link' say i
k to
/bin/link_copy.
This is what I get.
$ which link
/c/Program Files (x86)/Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0/VC/BIN/link.exe
>
> Probably either the arguments or the format the linker is called is not
> proper. One should investigate this further :).
>
> Kind Regards,
> Alin.
&
___
From: dev-boun...@openvswitch.org [dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] on behalf of
Ben Pfaff [b...@nicira.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 6:23 PM
To: Alessandro Pilotti
Cc: dev@openvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Autoconf limits on Windows
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:46:36AM +, Alessandro
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:46:36AM +, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
>
> > On 26/nov/2013, at 08:10, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> >
> > Since you're OK with manual updates, I'm happy in principle with having
> > IDE-related files in the repository as long as they are not unreasonably
> > large. But ther
> On 26/nov/2013, at 08:10, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> Since you're OK with manual updates, I'm happy in principle with having
> IDE-related files in the repository as long as they are not unreasonably
> large. But there's something weird going on. Why would special files
> would be needed for syn
Since you're OK with manual updates, I'm happy in principle with having
IDE-related files in the repository as long as they are not unreasonably
large. But there's something weird going on. Why would special files
would be needed for syntax highlighting or Git integration or even
integrated debug
Of course I do. :-)
A CI gate might be very helpful for this purpose as a further step to keep
those files aligned by avoiding regressions IMO but for the time being we'd
perfectly fine with manual updates.
> On 26/nov/2013, at 03:19, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> You realize that no one else is goi
You realize that no one else is going to update them, right?
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:03:02AM +, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
> What if we simply add a folder with the Visual Studio build files to begin
> with?
>
> > On 26/nov/2013, at 01:29, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
> >
> > We're not switching t
What if we simply add a folder with the Visual Studio build files to begin with?
> On 26/nov/2013, at 01:29, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>
> We're not switching to CMake. If you have something to generate the
> XML files you need, we'll check that in.
>
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:23:37PM +, Ales
We're not switching to CMake. If you have something to generate the
XML files you need, we'll check that in.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:23:37PM +, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
> Visual Studio is the "de facto" IDE for Windows development. It provides all
> the features you'd expect from a moder
Visual Studio is the "de facto" IDE for Windows development. It provides all
the features you'd expect from a modern environment (integrated debugger,
refactoring tools, Git integration, syntax highlighting and a gazillion
additional features) and in general it allows to be a few orders of magni
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 25, 2013, at 5:05 PM, Jesse Gross wrote:
>
> They're the equivalent of makefiles for Visual Studio. Without them
> you can't use the Windows-native development tools so while it's not
> impossible to work it certainly makes life more difficult.
One can still edit
Coming from linux, all I looked for while testing was whether I can create
executables that can be run and debugged. I could do both. (For debugging, I
had to add an additional option to cccl to create the symbol file).
Alessandro,
As Ben mentioned, please explain what is that the project file
They're the equivalent of makefiles for Visual Studio. Without them
you can't use the Windows-native development tools so while it's not
impossible to work it certainly makes life more difficult.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> What I'm trying to get at is, what are the "solut
Yeah I don't really know, everyone who devs on window seems to think
it matters, but I haven't had any experience with it personally.
Ethan
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> What I'm trying to get at is, what are the "solution and related
> projects" good for? The non-Windows
What I'm trying to get at is, what are the "solution and related
projects" good for? The non-Windows world does fine without them, so
if "make" can work on Windows then why is the result "basically
useless for any practical development purpose"?
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Ethan Jac
My understanding is that Guru is working on a solution to this
problem. What were your thoughts?
Ethan
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:11:00PM +, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
>> We did some testing with autoconf / automake on Windows. Makefiles
>>
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 08:11:00PM +, Alessandro Pilotti wrote:
> We did some testing with autoconf / automake on Windows. Makefiles
> are getting generated correctly although we cannot obviously verify
> the result with a full build since we didn?t port all the patches to
> the master branch y
21 matches
Mail list logo
