Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted

Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway.  They just all 
download the binary a guy (usually literally "one guy") built.  So, let's 
just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be 
all set. </tougue in cheek>

Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't 
plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by 
loading cygwin.  I do wonder what the requirements are for building 
commercial db's that run on unix and windows.  I imagine they are 
similarly off-putting if it were an option.


On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote:

> I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the
> code away from using the UNIX like programs.  My reasoning is that the more
> unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract
> existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch
> as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the
> oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements.
> 
> Al.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>
> To: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Postgres development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM
> Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
> 
> 
> > Jan Wieck writes:
> >
> > > I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the
> > > patches mailing list.
> >
> > I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process
> > control.  This is going to be a burden to maintain.  Everytime someone
> > changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be
> > fixed.  And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not
> > freely available this will be difficult.  I don't see a strong reason not
> > to stick with good old configure; make; make install.  You're already
> > requiring various Unix-like tools, so you might as well require the full
> > shell environment.  A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute
> > implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free
> > using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much
> > less intimidating.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>