I'm not sure what the cygwin32 environment entails, but I'm a Windows
programmer (since Windows 2.0!) and I want to produce a Win32-native
version of PostgreSQL anyway. I was waiting until the 6.4 excitement died
down. Looks like Joost beat me to the punch. :-)
Aha, I read Joost's reply as I was reading this. I know that the GNU
thing is a problem for PG'ers. But if we can get the code working, Joost,
I can go back and un-GNU it. That is, I can do what I was planning on
doing anyway -- do a Win32 port without anybody else's tools. It will
help immensely if we start seeing what will go wrong under Windows. See
where I'm coming from? BTW: what compiler are you using for this effort?
But I agree that a Win32 port would get PG into the "hands of the masses."
My current needs are that it run on Solaris and NT, but I'd *like* it to
run well on 95 as well.
Michael
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, David Hartwig wrote:
> I'm impressed so far.
>
> Getting ahead of myself...
>
> What the overhead of the cygwin32 environment? (price, etc.)
>
> This would make a nice binary distribution, eh? Such a distribution could
> put PostgreSQL in the hands of many.
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > Hi Magnus,
> > >
> > > I found a working (enough) implementation. In fact This afternoon I
> > > succeeeded in a complete compile just ip to "All of PostgreSQL is
> > > successfully made. Ready to install."
> >
> > Wow, that's pretty amazing.
>
>
>
>
>
