Re: Recommended build instructions ...

On 15 September 2016 at 10:55, Bjoern Michaelsen < bjoern.michael...@canonical.com> wrote: > I would expect > those using the IDE stuff on Windows to also maintain it themselves I doubt it could be said any more clearly that the IDE stuff should not even be mentioned to newbies then. ---tml ___

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:08:07AM +0200, Jan Iversen wrote: > > Clinging to ancient toolchains isnt sustainable, Better: Adapt the script to > > work with current versions of make. > Then it would be a lot better to not only adapt it, but also finalise the > script so it includes all targets

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 22:30, Bjoern Michaelsen > wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:23:46PM -0700, slacka wrote: >> Does anyone has a version of make that works with make >> vs2013-ide-integration? If so, could you please share it on a cloud storage >> service? > > Clinging to anci

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Hi, On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:23:46PM -0700, slacka wrote: > Does anyone has a version of make that works with make > vs2013-ide-integration? If so, could you please share it on a cloud storage > service? Clinging to ancient toolchains isnt sustainable, Better: Adapt the script to work with cur

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Is the "make vs2013-ide-integration" script working for anyone? With a clean Win 10 install + VS 2013 + LODE, I always get: make[1]: *** [cmd] Error 127 From, http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Error-building-Visual-Studio-2013-project-file-for-LibreOffice-on-Windows-tp4140307p4140941.html "

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

> On 13 Sep 2016, at 08:45, Juergen Funk Mailinglist > wrote: > > The other problem with Visual Studio Project file is, some projects included > not completely or are missing complete This is a known challenge. the current gbuild_to_ide was not meant to enable a complete make in VS, but merel

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

I have added a red mine, so everybody can follow the progress. https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/2057 rgds jan I. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Speaking of wiki build instructions, the IDE instructions for Windows have not worked for almost a year now. Both the IDE instructions and Windows Instructions

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

On 09/09/16 18:03, Thorsten Behrens wrote: >> I was broken by McAffe - it broke git - the simple clone failed with a >> > permissions problem. We have a not-very-explicit "turn off AV" messaging >> > but >> > not in the LODE (or devcentral) pages, and we should do that earlier I >> > think; st

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Michael Meeks wrote: > * I was excited about Chocolatey > Same here - > I read the website, thought 'wow Windows is getting its act together', > then I tried to use it. The downloads complained of not being signed, I > ignored that, but still they refused to work - eventually I gave up, and >

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

> * Recommending a known-good Visual Studio > > The LODE page for some reason recommends Visual Studio 2015 - three > times, though there is 2013 in the small print. I was to discover many hours > later that in fact LibreOffice x86 on the libreoffice-5-2 branch (at least) > doesn't compile in

Re: Recommended build instructions ...

Michael Meeks-5 wrote > * I was excited about Chocolatey ... eventually I gave up, and moved on to > manual installation. As did I. If you look at the history all of the Chocolatey info was recently added. It seems to cause more problems than it solves. Should we should move it off into it's own s