Windows Build setupTools

[Michael Ennen]

Thanks for the tip, Tom. I understand that Cygwin is a dependency of
building on Windows but didn't
know that the properties are only configured on a cygwin shell.

I have a pseudo-goal of removing the Cygwin dependency from building
OpenJFX on Windows and
I wonder why Cygwin is necessary for setupTools to work? I see other
obvious places in the build
files that would only work on Cygwin, but am unclear as to why the
properties would not be set
in cmd.exe or Powershell.

Thanks again for the clarification.

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:04 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at>
wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> I did not had to setup any special variables and documented my steps at
> https://github.com/BestSolution-at/openjfx-build.
>
> I had trouble myself initially but the reason was that I ran the "gradle
> sdk" command from within a MSDOS-Shell but you really need to run it within
> cygwin.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On 21.12.17 06:40, Michael Ennen wrote:
>
>> Some people were reporting that Windows builds are difficult to setup.
>> I think this is due to the fact that the call to setupTools in
>> buildSrc/win.gradle
>> is in fact not working correctly.
>>
>> Invoking buildSrc/genVSproperties.bat directly prints the correct
>> properties.
>>
>> However adding some debugging to setupTools it is clear that something is
>> very wrong
>> with it. This is the result:
>>
>> WINDOWS_VS_DEVENVDIR=
>> WINDOWS_VS_DEVENVCMD=/VCExpress.exe
>> WINDOWS_VS_VCINSTALLDIR=
>> WINDOWS_VS_VSINSTALLDIR=
>> WINDOWS_VS_MSVCDIR=
>> WINDOWS_VS_INCLUDE=
>> WINDOWS_VS_LIB=
>> WINDOWS_VS_LIBPATH=
>> WINDOWS_VS_PATH=;<SNIP ENTIRE SYSTEM PATH>
>> WINDOWS_VS_VER=120
>> WINDOWS_SDK_DIR=
>> WINDOWS_SDK_VERSION=
>>
>> This is the reason people are needing to hard-code values for the
>> properties
>> below the call to setupTools.
>>
>> I am trying to debug what is actually wrong with setupTools but so far not
>> making much
>> progress. I tried this on my local Windows 10 machine and Appveyor VMs and
>> the result
>> is the same. I also read at least two mails in this list about needing to
>> hard-code the
>> properties, I am assuming it is for the same reason.
>>
>> I will try and figure out the reason but wanted to at least make this
>> issue
>> more concrete.
>>
>>


-- 
Michael Ennen