Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks?

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Craig Ringer
>> <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>>
>>> Why _not_ distribute gettext headers, though? Sources I can understand
>>> for size reasons, but the headers are small and fuss free, and you need
>>> the _right_ _versions_ to build against the Pg backend.
>>
>> No reason, other than I didn't realise they were needed to build extension.
>>
>
> Ah, fair enough. I read:
>
>> We do include the library. We don't include the headers or source for
>> third party code though - that would be considered part of the build
>> environment, just the same as the Windows SDK.
>
> as "we don't want to distribute third-party headers even if required by
> Pg's own headers" and thus thought you *did* know but by policy didn't
> want to distribute them.

I didn't know in this case, but was making a general statement about
how I felt the policy should be.

Plus I was feeling a little grumpy in my pre-coffee state. Sorry :-p

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PG East Conference: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do