"Troy Simpson" <troy_at_ebswift.com> wrote on 03/01/2010 08:44:54 PM:
> I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries.
> The installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had
> lost commit access for a time during the transition and by the time
> I got that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been
> pointless to continue development. If someone could produce
> binaries I could get the installer back on track, otherwise it?s not
> worth spending any time on if the project will not support (as in
> supply) windows binaries.
> I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did,
> however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on
> the user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the
> capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way
> they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the
> attention of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my
> opinion that the project should have a ?supported? release to assist
> with bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard base-level
I too posted a question about the windows build process, but without
the recipe, I just haven't found the time to dig into it myself.
(I created my virtual machine, but wasn't even sure what build tool
versions were preferred.)
I believe there are windows binaries generated by the windows build bots.
Not sure if the build bots run on the release branches for all platforms,
but that could probably be remedied. No idea if those binaries
are built in a compatible way to the previous release ones...
There was some discussion if some of the Apache infrastructure could
be used for the build. Not sure if that was resolved or pursued.
If I remember correctly, DJ's build machine completely died and is the
main reason he was unable to perform the build.
Received on 2010-03-02 16:58:13 CET