v1.6 RC1 on Win64

[NightStrike]

2009/9/4 Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
> 2009/9/4 NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail.com>:
>> 2009/9/4 Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
>>> 2009/9/4 NightStrike <nightstrike at gmail.com>:
>>>> 2009/9/3 Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
>>>>> The autotools build system will go away right after the 1.6 release. I
>>>>> have no problem accepting a patch for it in 1.6, but combined with the
>>>>> KDE-specific configuration it's so bad that I don't think updating the
>>>>> autoconf script to newer constructs is worth the work.
>>>>
>>>> What are you replacing your build system with?
>>>
>>> There is already CMake build system in place, we currently maintain
>>> two and it complicates things.
>>
>> Does that support cross compiling?
>
> Yes. Although I've never tried it myself, so I can't help much.
>
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_Cross_Compiling
> http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CmakeMingw

Ugh.  I have read this thoroughly and did some test setups.  I have
determined that cross compiling with CMAKE is absolutely horrendous.

With autoconf, all you do is "../configure --host=$(triplet)", and now
you're cross compiled.  This puts a boatload of responsibility on the
user of taglib to figure out what sort of magic to do to get it to
cross compile, instead of leaving that burden on the taglib
developers, the people that know the product inside and out.

Isn't there any way that you can make taglib cross compilable out of
the box once autoconf goes away?  You will be removing a very big
feature (even if you didn't know it was there and functional).

>
>> And, did you see my other post with diff changes for config.h?
>
> Yes, but that's not the right solution. This affects way more classes
> (everything under taglib/) and the macro should not be defined when
> building for example the C bindings. There are a few possible
> solution, http://paste.pocoo.org/show/137925/ seemed to be the easiest
> way.

Are you going to or have you already committed this to 1.6?