Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > > The whole MinGW thing is overhyped. Install Cygwin and specify gcc
> > > -mno-cygwin when you compile. That gets you the same compilation
> > > environment that MinGW provides, but you can use all the Unix tools.
> >
> > But we still need to do the work of getting this to work without
> > compatiblity libraries.
>
> That's what I'm saying: -mno-cygwin turns off all the Cygwin compatiblity
> libraries and compiles it just like MinGW. It's the same code.
I am not using any MinGW features. The changes I am making are needed
for a Visual C port or any native port.
I am using MinGW because there is no confusion over libraries I _don't_
want to use, and over possible license issues. We can switch to Cygwin
if we wish --- the Win32 code will be the same. I don't even have a
compile test for MinGW being present or anything.
> > > Yeah, but if there is supposedly no cvs available in that environment,
> > > what is the point of this exercise? They're going to have to download a
> > > pre-cooked tarball anyway.
> >
> > True. They could CVS from somewhere else and copy it to Win32, but they
> > would need flex/bison on Win32 for the compile. It just seemed two less
> > things for people to do.
>
> If they get cvs from "somewhere", why can't they get flex and bison from
> the same place?
I am not sure.
I don't understand why people are wasting time worrying about a few
files resurected in CVS to assist Win32. If you want me to set up my
own CVS so people aren't bothered, maybe I should do that. It is a pain
to be having to answer so many questions about something that is
micro-managing a project like this.
If you want a vote on whether those files should be added, fine, if not,
I would rather not hear complaints.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073