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

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Kevin Flanagan <kevin-f(at)linkprior(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks?
Date: 2010-03-05 09:31:49
Message-ID: 4B90CF85.2000202@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Ringer
> <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>
>> How do _you_ go about building server extensions for Pg? Where do you
>> get the headers for gettext etc?
>
> Same place I get the binaries - gnuwin32 mostly.
>
>> I'm increasingly thinking the win32 package _should_ be split into
>> server binary and separate headers+pdb+sources packages, with the sdk
>> package including gettext headers and sources too. It'd be a LOT easier
>> to develop with Pg on win32 this way.
>
> How does breaking it up into multiple packages make it easier?

What I was trying to say was "if you don't want to include gettext in
the main download, perhaps splitting all the dev files into a separate
package would permit you to add gettext and the rest".

I don't much like the fact that presently users have to go hunting for
the libraries, with not even a pointer included in the sources about
where they should look to find headers matching the shipped libraries,
and what version they need.

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.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2010-03-05 09:37:25 Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks?
Previous Message Dave Page 2010-03-05 09:16:16 Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks?