"Mark Hellegers" <mhellege@xs4all.nl> writes:
> - Assuming all patches are applied to get Postgresql running, what does
> it require to keep it in there? I noticed you removed the BeOS port,
> because no one was maintaining it. What does it take to maintain a
> port?
These days, the expectation is that somebody runs a buildfarm member
on that platform:
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/index.html
You might want to look into whether you can get the buildfarm script
to run before you go too far.
> - Can I submit patches for smaller parts or do I need to submit all the
> patches in one go? For example, can I submit the patch for the
> configure part first and other changes later?
Well, it'd depend on how invasive the earlier patches are. We might
want to see some evidence that the project will reach completion before
we hack up the code too much.
> - I have a problem compiling Postgresql after I installed iodbc. Iodbc
> also contains a header called sqltypes.h, which the compiler picks up
> before the one in the ecpg include directory as it is in the general
> include directory for the system. Is that something someone has seen
> before and knows what is wrong? It could be some mistake I made in my
> changes.
Hm, I don't recall this having been reported before. Check the order
of -I switches in the ecpg makefiles. It certainly sounds like a risk
that we might want to fix independently of any particular port.
> I am planning to get the latest sources from git and apply my patches
> on that source as I am assuming that is preferred and I don't need
> 9.2.1 specifically.
Yeah, we would probably not consider back-patching such changes, so you
may as well work against master.
regards, tom lane