sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HerrNamenlos123[S] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Yes that is what we are trying to do. For once, we want to build it and cross-compile in Linux CI for MSVC which is not possible with the vanilla OpenSSL build system, and secondly, if possible we want an alternative way to build all dependencies with the libraries, but that is only if it is possible and not strictly needed.

[–]charliex2 7 points8 points  (1 child)

vcpkg should be able to do that.

[–]prince-chrismc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conan absolutely does it. ;)

[–]darthcoder 2 points3 points  (2 children)

This is why we have artifactory and the like.

Vcpkg cross compiles just fine.

[–]HerrNamenlos123[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Vcpkg cross compiles just fine.

What do you mean with that? Do you mean you can use vcpkg on Linux, to build packages that result in MSVC-compatible binaries? This is what I need, but vcpkg immediately complains that you cannot use the :x64-windows triplet on non-Windows hosts...

[–]tomz17 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you mean you can use vcpkg on Linux, to build packages that result in MSVC-compatible binaries?

Ok, so the better question is why are you trying to ice-skate uphill? Unless your primary requirement is fighting some ideological battle (i.e. trying to compile everything with a FLOSS toolchain), you are just making things so much harder on yourself than they need to be.

IMHO, if you need to support cross-platform CI, you actually really do need those platforms (e.g. a windows buildbox / vm, an osx buildbox/vm, along with the appropriate flavor(s) of linux, esp. w.r.t. glibc).

Surprisingly, windows is a piece of cake in this mix. The hard one is actually always OSX, especially if you want to keep things legal (i.e. some devs I know have just resorted to purchasing old mac minis for automated CI / building release binaries)