Re: Win32 defines

On Sat, 2003-04-05 at 12:53, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 12:38:51PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Neil Conway wrote:
> > >
> > > > If we finish the native Win32 port, is there any need to keep the cygwin
> > > > stuff around?
> > >
> > > They do ship PostgreSQL with cygwin, so we may need to keep it around,
> > > at least for a few releases, and it isn't that big a port.
> >
> > Surely there's no need for a less performant, less reliable Cygwin port
> > when a native Win32 one is available?  If they ship it now, they
> > probably won't need to later when the Win32 port is finished.  Cygwin is
> > already said to be "experimental" or non-commercial quality, AFAIR.
> >
> > Not that I care though...
>
> I can remove it anytime people want it removed --- maybe once we have
> Win32 stabalized and working 100%, we can remove it.

Even wine has the occasional update to ensure it works on Cygwin -- so
I'm sure there are a number of good reasons that we just don't know yet.

--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc