Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Brian Bruns |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301211653540.20482-100000@localhost.localdomain Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted ("Al Sutton" <al@alsutton.com>) |
Responses |
Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
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@gmx.net> > To: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> > Cc: "Postgres development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.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@gmx.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 >
pgsql-hackers by date: