Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I don't understand why people are wasting time worrying about a few
> > files resurected in CVS to assist Win32.
>
> Because this approach incurs a long-term cost (CVS storage) to buy a
> short-term benefit (Windows developers might not need flex&bison).
> The long-term cost is not trivial --- if you look at the CVS history
> for the short interval that we kept these files in CVS, you will see
> lots of five-thousand-line diffs corresponding to trivial changes in
> the gram.y source. We abandoned that approach for very good reasons.
>
> It was already pointed out that Windows users wouldn't get any benefit
> at all unless they installed a CVS client. Surely if they can do that,
> they can install flex&bison too.
>
> We decided years ago that the minimum requirement to use our CVS sources
> on Unix systems was the ability to run flex and bison locally (and we've
> not had much patience with people running old versions of same, either).
> I don't see the argument why people helping to develop a cutting-edge
> Windows port should be expected to be less competent than every single
> Unix CVS user. (Other than the fact that they're using Windows in the
> first place of course ;-)))
Also, I am told flex doesn't run on MinGW properly --- not sure why.
Anyway, buy continuing complaints, you are asking for a vote, so I will
start one now.
--
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