Re: [GENERAL] Anyone doing a native NT port?

You do NOT have to run a cygwin shell to run binaries built under cygwin.

I use cygwin to build .exe and .dll files that run from an NT/DOS prompt and
from PERL scripts running as CGI.

The only requirement is that the primary cygwin.dll be in the NT path
somewhere.

I even run vi under NT;-))

Cheers,
Stephen.

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, David Warnock wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> >
> > As I am not going to be able to help on the coding I won't try to
> > comment on it's dificulty.
> >
> > But I will ask what realistic expectations are for the current NT port
> > using cgywin. My current concern is that the installation is very
> > complex and the useability is poor due to the need to enter a cgywin
> > shell to access any of the postgresql features.
> >
> > So
> >
> > a) Is it going to be possible using cgywin to build binaries
> > (postmaster, createdb, psql etc) that can be run from a standard windows
> > NT command prompt? Or will a cgywin shell always be needed? If this can
> > be done then so that we can provide an installation of binaries with no
> > unix shell visible then we can probably get this accepted by our users.
>
> pgAdmin should provide you with this, no?
>
> Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
>
>
> ************

--
========================================================================
Stephen Davies Consulting scldad(at)sdc(dot)com(dot)au
Adelaide, South Australia. Voice: 08-8177 1595
Computing & Network solutions. Fax: 08-8177 0133