Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: darwin pgsql patches

From: Peter Bierman <bierman(at)apple(dot)com>
To: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches
Date: 2000-11-30 21:21:30
Message-ID: v03130306b64c71a24d5e@[17.202.21.230] (view raw or whole thread)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
At 6:47 PM +0000 11/30/00, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>> > Why not use "__APPLE__"? There probably isn't much hope of running
>> > anything on a Mac with MacOS which isn't also darwin, right?
>> What about Rhapsody?
>
>Yeah, what about it? Are there any production machines which might get
>PostgreSQL installed on them? Not so far, otherwise we would have seen a
>port, right? 
>
>Peter B, comments?

Mac OS X exists in two forks at the moment. One of them is Mac OS X server, which is based on mach 2.5, and is a snapshot of the Mac OS X development process from 1999. There are enough customers of this product that Apple has continued to bring that fork forward onto the latest machines, so that they can smoothly migrate them back onto the top of tree when it ships as a server product. These people are either WebObjects developers who are probably deploying on Solaris or HPUX, or Schools and Workgroups who need a high end AppleShareIP server.

Mac OS X top of tree is Mac OS X client, currently available as Mac OS X Public Beta. (Darwin, which is the name for all of the Open Source parts, everything below the window server, is actually slightly more current.) When it's stable enough, the server solution software will be sold on top of this codebase.

While there are probably several Mac OS X Server customers that would be interested in PG, I think you can safely concentrate on Mac OS X (client, Public  Beta, darwin) with the knowledge that they will eventually come to you.


>fwiw (in case I'm coming across as *just* in a bad mood ;), it seems
>like the right time to help Apple understand that they should be
>building their compiler with predefined symbols so that the machine and
>OS type can be identified automatically. In general, one expects that
>from the compiler, though I'm sure we have exceptions in our supported
>platforms.

The list I sent is actually the list that was decided on about a year ago, after trimming a much longer list of stuff that the compiler used to export. For that reason, I don't think you'll see it grow.

But I don't actually think it should. It's the prupose of configure, not the compiler, to determine the system that's running. Why should the compiler care what varriant of an OS it's running on? It might not even be compiling code for that OS. Is there some cost of #define __darwin__ in src/template/darwin that I'm not seeing? (not trying to be inflamatory here. :-)

-pmb

--
bierman(at)apple(dot)com

"4 out of 5 people with the wrong hardware want to run Mac OS X because..."
http://www.newertech.com/oscompatibility/osxinfo.html



In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter BiermanDate: 2000-12-01 02:24:32
Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-11-30 19:22:10
Subject: Re: darwin pgsql patches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group