Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 10/17/06, Branko Čibej <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?
Windows people have the Platform SDK installed. :)
Subversion people sometimes do that.
I haven't a clue about MinGW people ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 18 03:25:36 2006