On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 23:06, Brar Piening <brar@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:26:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> it's not something we should hold up the CF / release for.
>
> I agree.
> At least it should get some more testing besides mine.
>
> I've set up virtual machines with VS 2003, VS 2005 Express, VS 2008 Express
> (+ my PC with VS 2010) for testing purposes but I didn't test all possible
> build paths with respect to the external libraries to include.
Yeah, the external libraries are really the biggest thing.
> While I didn't change much of the existing VS 2005/8 code I currently can't
> guarantee that the VS 2010 build will work for every possible external
> library one could include (yet I didn't stumble into any failure while
> testing) and still I could have broken some VS 2005/8 build path too.
> The patch could also be extended to automatically support building libpq
> when VS 2003 is detected or support other desireable features that aren't
> really in the context of supporting VS 2010.
>
> Being somewhat short of time in the next weeks I'm at least willing to
> rebase the patch on request and do some more testing or fix issues someone
> else has detected before the next release (9.2?) goes beta.
Sounds good.
> If there's some pressure to support VS 2010 asap - please let me know and
> I'll see what I can do.
I don't think there is, really. It's a "nice to have", but if it comes
in 9.2 instead of 9.1, I don't think that's a problem. 99.9% of all
Win32 users don't build from source in the first place, and I'm sure
Dave is happy not to have to dela with another version ;)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/