Re: [PATCH] Improve mingw support

On 10/17/06, Branko Èibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:

> That's ... *bad*
>
> It's more important to encrypt the passwords than to be able to compile
> with MinGW, so -1.
>
> Instead, you could declare CopyProtectData in svn_private_config.hw
> #ifdef __MINGW32__.

It's actually not CopyProtectData that's the issue, it's
CRYPTPROTECT_PROMPTSTRUCT and CRYPTPROTECT_UI_FORBIDDEN. I've got a
diff here that inlines their declarations in simple_providers.c for
MinGW, but is it's just based on some random stuff I found out on the
web, I have no clue if it's correct. It seems to run, although I
haven't tested it fully. I'm also kind of curious if this sort of
thing is considered ok, do windows people really just inline defs to
work around stuff like this?

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org