Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted

Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all
download the binary a guy (usually literally "one guy") built. So, let's
just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be
all set. </tougue in cheek>

Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't
plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by
loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building
commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are
similarly off-putting if it were an option.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote:

> I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the
> code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more
> unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract
> existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch
> as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the
> oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements.
>
> Al.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
> To: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
> Cc: "Postgres development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM
> Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
>
>
> > Jan Wieck writes:
> >
> > > I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the
> > > patches mailing list.
> >
> > I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process
> > control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone
> > changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be
> > fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not
> > freely available this will be difficult. I don't see a strong reason not
> > to stick with good old configure; make; make install. You're already
> > requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full
> > shell environment. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute
> > implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free
> > using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much
> > less intimidating.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>