On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > >> Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>> I thought the consensus of the discussion was that this was not
> > >>> necessary. It sure doesn't strike me as a good idea.
> >
> > > Also, keep in mind that in the end most folks will be building under
> > > MinGW using a release tarball, that has those output files. We haven't
> > > gotten a MinGW release yet, so they have to build all the stuff.
> >
> > Well, that's a fair argument, but why don't you get Marc to set up
> > nightly snapshots for the WIN32_DEV branch? That only costs cycles
> > in the short term. Polluting CVS with updates to derived files will
> > cost us CVS storage forever.
>
> Hmm, another problem is that I don't think there is a flex port for
> MinGW --- at least I remember someone saying they found bison, but not
> flex, so if they grab the snapshot, they will not be able to use CVS to
> do development and diffs.
Actually, if I recall that same thread, one person mentioned downloading a
MinGW bison port, and then could build flex no problem using that ...
Basically, I agree with Tom ... if we are going to go the extra steps to
support Win32, at least the Win32 ppl can do is take the extra steps to
build using the same 'restrictions' as the Unix ppl go through ...