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

> 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.
>
> b) Is it possible to add support for Windows 9x? If so it anyone working
> on this? (NB I am not considering this as a server platform but for a
> single user system to avoid us supporting multiple dbms) [anyway I don't
> know of an alternative to Postgresql that has the same feature set - I
> need most postgresql features {license and technical}].

Sorry, I don't know the answers to these questions because I don't use
NT, but I will say this. Fixing the above problems is going to be 99
times easier than porting PostgreSQL to native NT without cygwin.
Basically, you will have to write cygwin, and that is no trivial task.

The above items can probably be done using tcl/tk for a user interface,
and having the cygwin shell do the actual execution. Again, 99 times
easier to do than the port to native NT.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026