From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, <greg(dot)landrum(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: writing backend extensions using Visual Studio |
Date: | 2005-03-29 15:45:29 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E472BDD7@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 29 March 2005 16:22
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan; greg(dot)landrum(at)gmail(dot)com;
> pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] writing backend extensions
> using Visual Studio
>
> > So, a question to anyone who knows, do we really need to ship *all*
> > headers with the installer, or is there a useful subset?
>
> The reason 'make install-all-headers' went away is that we
> made a policy
> decision to install *all* the headers. I don't think the Windows
> packaging should be second-guessing that. It would be reasonable to
> have an option to install *none* of the headers, for people who aren't
> going to be doing any software development, but if you do install them
> please don't be selective about it.
Ahh, I see the problem - the build script is only pulling in files in
include/, not include/*/ etc. Will have to look at that.
Thanks Tom.
Ragrds, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-03-29 18:30:17 | Re: Enhancement: Remove NT/Interactive from Power Users Group |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-03-29 15:22:27 | Re: writing backend extensions using Visual Studio |