Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 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. > > Indeed. I think the goal here is to have a port that *runs* in native > Windows; but I see no reason not to require Cygwin for *building* it.
Agreed. I don't mind Cygwin if we don't have licensing problems with distributing a Win32 binary that used Cygwin to build. I do have a problem with MKS toolkit, which is a commerical purchase. I would like to avoid reliance on that, though Jan said he needed their bash. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
