[Gdal-dev] Visual Studio Project Files

[Ivan Lucena]

Hi there,

After I changed all "copy *.obj ../o" to "xcopy /D /Y *.obj ../o" in
about 65 GDAL makefile.vc my compilation process improved very
reasonably, so I decided to give it a try to what Microsoft Visual
Studio calls a "Makefile Project":

ms-help://MS.VSCC.v80/MS.MSDN.vAug06.en/dv_vcide/html/dd077af3-97a8-48fb
-baaa-cf7e07ddef61.htm

It is not as good as a real "Visual Studio Dynamic Library (.dll)" but
works very well. I can edit my piece of code and click F5 to start
debugging in seconds. 

Basically all you have to do is to configure in the VC project
properties the proper command line for build, clean and rebuild.

I am not against the Visual Studio Project initiative, I actually would
like to have the time and knowledge to help, but I think that "Makefile
Project" is just something that could be adopted individually very
easily in the meantime or by some of the folks that prefer make files.

Best regards,

Ivan Lucena

-----Original Message-----
From: gdal-dev-bounces at lists.maptools.org
[mailto:gdal-dev-bounces at lists.maptools.org] On Behalf Of Frank
Warmerdam
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:44 PM
To: Simon Perkins
Cc: gdal-dev at lists.maptools.org
Subject: Re: [Gdal-dev] Visual Studio Project Files

Simon Perkins wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Matt Hanson and I had a thread going in which the subject of Visual
> Studio Project files came up. I didn't get any comments on that and
> figured the details might have been lost in the noise, so here's a
> second attempt to elicit some feedback...
...
> So, what d'yall think? Is it necessary? Would it be useful? Any ideas
> about this could be implemented most effectively? Anyone done any work
> on this already that they want to share? I would be happy to take a
> first stab at this. Should this be written up as an official RFC? How
do
> I do that?

Sy,

I haven't run into any compelling problems with the NMAKE based build
approach myself.  As Mateusz points out, we can adjust things to embed
the manifests if that is important.

However, if there are folks who understand project files well, and are
willing to maintain them, then I would not be opposed to them being
available as a parallel build mechanism.  I, unfortunately, do not
understand them well, and am not really keen on being responsible
for their development or maintenance.

I would suggest that a formal RFC be brought forward to the GDAL PSC
before project files (or cmake based builds) are introduced into the
existing tree.

Incidentally, if something like this is approached, it might be
reasonable
to integrate it with the project files for wince in the gdal\wince
directory.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------
------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo,
http://osgeo.org

_______________________________________________
Gdal-dev mailing list
Gdal-dev at lists.maptools.org
http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev