PgAdmin III on OSX (was Re: [ANNOUNCE] pgAdmin III v1.0.0 Released)

For the time being, I could live with 1), but I couldn't get it to configure
on my OSX laptop... It couldn't find my pgsql installation... Even though it
was looking in the right place!

does pgsql have to be compiled with ssl for pgadmin to work?

adam

> Le Lundi 29 Septembre 2003 12:10, Dave Page a écrit :
>> The OSX port is underway but is mainly being held up by problems with
>> wxWindows as I understand it. We are in contact with the OSX developer
>> for wxWindows and I believe things are moving along, but unfortunately I
>> don't know much more than that.
>>
>> Jean-Michel, can you give Adam any more useful info?
>
> Dear Adam Witney and friends,
>
> pgAdmin3 is an internationalised product available in 28 languages. It is
> based on the wxWindows multi-platform environment available for MS Windows,
> GNU/Linux and MacOsX and other platforms. At the same time, pgAdmin3 is
> designed to query and display Unicode data stored in PostgreSQL (which is
> also Unicode compliant).
>
> As far as I understood, the port problem relies on the fact that that MacOsX
> is not natively and fully Unicode compliant.
>
> Presently, there are five possible solutions/workarounds:
>
> 1) Compile pgAdmin3 in non-unicode mode. In which case, pgAdmin3 port would be
> unable to display non-european languages and query PostgreSQL Unicode
> databases.
>
> 2) Use the "iconv" library linked against wxWindows in order to bring a
> Unicode abstraction layer to wxWindows. Julian, I had this idea in my sleep,
> is this a workable solution?
>
> 3) Wait for MacOsX 10.3 which should be Unicode compliant. We already
> discussed this opportunity, which does not fit our ideas because it would
> require MacOsX users to upgrade.
>
> 4) Use donated proprietary compilers in order to compile pgAdmin3 under
> MacOsX. My opinion is not to use proprietary software, but other members in
> the team are not agains this idea. This needs to be dicussed.
>
> 5) Compile pgAdmin as a fink package (http://www.fink.org). Maybe too
> complicated for MacOsX users.
>
> Could we discuss these opportunities? My opinion would be to go for 2), 1) and
> 4) and 5) in order of preference. What is the opinion of other members and
> contributors?
>
> Cheers,
> Jean-Michel
>

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.