Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 349 posts

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#11

Post by [deleted] »

slimsag wrote: post #8
colejohnson66 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Windows could do more to support the developers on other platforms. Symlinks just seem like a petty thing to complain about IMHO. Didn’t realize how common they were though. NTFS does support them, however. Is Git just not supporting them properly?

Well, it feels 'petty' and simple until: 1. You run into it, go "AH, wow, okay, I'll enable Developer Mode" 2. It still doesn't work, you're confused, you Google around a bit more and find out actually you also need to use a Git config option 3. You retry, now the symlinks work, but your compiler fails because "Destination Path Too Long", huh, that's weird 4. You google a bit more, and discover you need to set a regi…

[deleted]

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#12

Post by binarycrusader »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Are symlinks on Windows really such a big issue? I’ve never heard of projects using symlinks in their tree. If Windows developers are complaining about you doing something unusual, why is it their fault?

You don't have to enable Developer Mode to enable symlink creation. Administrators have the right to by default and non-administrator users can get this by enabling the documented policy:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-pro...

Developer Mode is just a bundle of useful developer-related settings and components that get applied to the device when enabled.

There's a post here about this from the Developer Mode angle with a bit more background:

https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2016/12/02/symlin...

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#13

Post by nicoburns »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #2

Are symlinks on Windows really such a big issue? I’ve never heard of projects using symlinks in their tree. If Windows developers are complaining about you doing something unusual, why is it their fault?

Projects don’t use symlinks because they aren’t supported on windows.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#14

Post by Animats »

It is. I generate the Windows executables for a program by cross-compiling Rust on Linux. Then test with Wine. The Rust crates are cross-platform enough that I don't have to special case platforms. This is easier than having a Windows machine.

The only current headache is that there's no pure Rust bundler, to make ".msi" or ".msix" installer files.

If you dump the legacy OS stuff, it gets easier.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#15

Post by bilekas »

fortran77 wrote: post #7
colejohnson66 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Windows could do more to support the developers on other platforms. Symlinks just seem like a petty thing to complain about IMHO. Didn’t realize how common they were though. NTFS does support them, however. Is Git just not supporting them properly?

That's exactly it. Windows developers know NTFS has Symbolic Links https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/creati...

Maybe I missed something on this discussion but symlinks and NTFS are not really related.. They have them yes, how they're handled is different.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#16

Post by CoastalCoder »

fortran77 wrote: post #7
colejohnson66 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Windows could do more to support the developers on other platforms. Symlinks just seem like a petty thing to complain about IMHO. Didn’t realize how common they were though. NTFS does support them, however. Is Git just not supporting them properly?

That's exactly it. Windows developers know NTFS has Symbolic Links https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/fileio/creati...

What's the standard for being an "actual Windows user"?

Asking because I doubt e.g. my mom knows that NTFS has symlinks.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#17

Post by ntauthority »

Counterpoint for this rant (showing it's again not very objective, and just what your or your environment's expectations are): it's easier to cross-compile binaries for Linux (using Clang and a sysroot on Windows) than it is to natively compile on Linux (not using a sysroot, as that is the 'default' flow there) if your environment is mostly Windows already. We do this for one of our products, in fact.

The post meanwhile seems to be part about open source policy (nasty, but not a technical issue - also including a new-to-me and hard to find on a Google or DDG search fact about the VS gallery endpoints having led to legal threats), part issues induced by 'weird' modern languages not caring to support Windows (as expected?), part Git for Windows not bothering to handle symbolic links cleanly (and the weird admin-only default thing that remained from Vista), and part... concerns where if people would spread the proper way of doing stuff (curl.exe bundled by default for downloads, or long file names being 'weird' - albeit less broken than claimed here) instead of just ranting this'd be fine too... but not really a coherent whole.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#18

Post by labrador »

This what is called in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy "All or Nothing Thinking." Microsoft is a for-profit company. It is pro open-source when it helps them and closed source also when it helps them. I like the new Microsoft which has open sourced a lot of stuff. It's way better than the old closed source regime.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#19

Post by thrdbndndn »

ntauthority wrote: post #17

Counterpoint for this rant (showing it's again not very objective, and just what your or your environment's expectations are): it's easier to cross-compile binaries for Linux (using Clang and a sysroot on Windows) than it is to natively compile on Linux (not using a sysroot, as that is the 'default' flow there) if your environment is mostly Windows already. We do this for one of our products, in fact. The post meanwh…

My counterpoint is simpler: I use some of these tools (like VS Code) because they're better, not because they're open source.

Also I don't think Pylance or whatever core extensions being closed source contradicts with the fact majority of VS Code (or vscodium) is open-source. And I don't see anything morally wrong that they want to close source some of their competitive products.

Re: Cross-compiling binaries for Windows is easier than building natively

#20

Post by e4m2 »

> Are derived community works, like say the D-language, Dart, or Zig bindings to the win32 API which are generated from those files open source - if Microsoft did not release them as such?

Certainly. The source for these bindings is the WinMD file, which is MIT licensed. While it is true that its contents are generated wholly from non-FOSS sources, it doesn't impact end users of the metadata. Microsoft owns the original IDL/headers and can choose to license any related work however they like.

Post reply on HN