Re: [ROOT] Making test example on win98

From: Anton Fokin (anton.fokin@smartquant.com)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2001 - 13:27:48 MET


Hi Nick,

actually I am not creating ROOT binaries from scratch but rather trying to
compile my own (unix) project on win98. What are the problems around root
3.02 bins on win98? I've been quite successful with making my libs under
win98 and running exe and scripts, although I have noted that root crashes
on some actions with canvas etc.

PS. to "installshield" discussion. I checked out InstallShield coming with
MSVC... It has "change registry" part in the install script, so what's the
problem with setting paths under install? On the other hand what prevents
you from writing a few lines in the shield script which will manually add
two lines in autoexec.bat file? You have to restart com then but who
cares...

Regards,
Anton


----- Original Message -----
From: Nick van Eijndhoven <Nick@phys.uu.nl>
To: Anton Fokin <anton.fokin@smartquant.com>
Cc: roottalk <roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch>; Fons Rademakers
<Fons.Rademakers@cern.ch>; <dcasper@uci.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ROOT] Making test example on win98


> Hi Anton,
> I am pleased to hear that you are creating ROOT binaries from scratch
> on a Win98 platform.
> As you know after ROOT 2.22/10 I have several problems when running the
> ROOT binaries from the web on my win98 machine (you can ask Valery Fine
> for details if you want). So win98 users are basically bound to stay with
> the old 2.22/10 version.
> I would like to suggest that once you have succeeded to create a
completely
> working set of ROOT binaries on a win98 system, that this version will
also
> be made available to the outside world via the ROOT web pages.
> On the pages one could then indicate this version as win98 specific.
> Could the ROOT team please consider this, since in our group many people
> use laptops and for these things we have the feeling that the flexible
win98
> OS is much more convenient than winNT or win2000.
>
>                                                          Cheers,
>                                                           Nick.
>
> --
> Dr. Nick van Eijndhoven mailto:nick@phys.uu.nl http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nick
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Org.:    Utrecht University/Nikhef, Department of Subatomic Physics
> Address: P.O. Box 80.000, NL-3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
> Phone:   +31-30-2532331(direct) +31-30-2531492(secr.)  Fax: +31-30-2518689
> NIKHEF:  +31-20-5922028(direct) +31-20-5922000(secr.)  Fax: +31-20-5925155
> CERN:    +41-22-7679751(direct) +41-22-7675857(secr.)  Fax: +41-22-7679480
> Offices: Buys Ballot lab. 710 (Utrecht)   H350 (Nikhef)   B23 1-020 (CERN)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Anton Fokin wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > well, I was using Makefile included in the test directory. Yes, I saw
> > Makefile.win32 in the same directory and I have tryied this one too (and
it
> > works somehow). Anyway, I suppose that if there is a Makefile in the
binary
> > distribution, it should be naturally related to this specific version of
the
> > distribution, so that a user can type nmake and get things compiled.
> > Moreover, there is "win32" portion of lines in the Makefile, so that I
> > assume this file is the correct one.
> >
> > Anyway, what I need is a makefile which works on both linux and win32,
> > depending on a platform. Do we have such clever one? I am not win32/VC
> > expert, so that I would like to get my linux root programs easily
recompiled
> > under win32. I thought I can use generic ROOT test Makefile upper part
for
> > that... Can I?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anton
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:50:34 MET