champagne wrote:I am running that test using exclusively public tools described in the project pointed 2 posts above
ronk wrote:I see nothing "public" in the project you cite.
champagne wrote:you have the sources, you have the projects definitions, what more is needed to be public ???
ronk wrote:How about *.cpp, *.h, etc. files in a *.zip or other compressed format so that people don't have to be familiar with the "svn" tool? [I think we had a very similar discussion for skfr.] Otherwise, how about hints on how to obtain and use our own copies of "svn"?
BTW how about makefiles for the compiler(s) supported?
I answer to that post here where the previous discussion took place;
The overall conditions are the same : a project in development located in what specialists (I am not) consider as the appropriate structure, a subversion manager.
This is the code on which I am working and the project is somehow the safety copy of my code.
The right way to be in line with the code is to get locally a subversion manager. I am using "Tortoise svn", a free program and this is also the subversion manager chosen by other contributors to the skfr project.
As in skfr project, it is possible, from time to time, to build a zip file collecting the necessary files for compilation, the doc and the .exe files.
We did it twice so far for skfr.
A similar frequency can be expected here. I intend to do it for the first time as soon as the basic documentation will be ready if potential users ask for it, but I strongly recommend to those who are willing to follow that project to use the svn support.
Regarding the makefile, it is implicit in the project definition. May be in other platforms an explicit makefile has to be defined.
Some discussions took place earlier on portability in that thread, The same problems should come with that project using another platform that Microsoft Visual C++