> -Original Message-
> From: Jan Wieck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:47 AM
> To: Peter Eisentraut
> Cc: Justin Clift; Hannu Krosing; Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane;
> Postgres development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches su
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Justin Clift writes:
>
> > The advantages to having the Win32 port be natively compatible with
> > Visual Studio is that it already is (no toolset-porting work needed
> > there),
>
> You're missing a couple of points here. First, the MS Visual whatever
> compiler can
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Justin Clift writes:
The advantages to having the Win32 port be natively compatible with
Visual Studio is that it already is (no toolset-porting work needed
there),
You're missing a couple of points here. First, the MS Visual whatever
compiler can also be used with a m
Justin Clift writes:
> The advantages to having the Win32 port be natively compatible with
> Visual Studio is that it already is (no toolset-porting work needed
> there),
You're missing a couple of points here. First, the MS Visual whatever
compiler can also be used with a makefile-driven build
Bruce Momjian writes:
> 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.
I don't believe that quite yet. Jan said the regression test script
crashes Cygwin's bash, but how come it has never cra
Justin Clift wrote:
Since March 2002 (less than 1 year ago), it's
been downloaded about 120,000,000 times. Wow. 120 Million downloads in
less than 1 year. That's a pretty popular IDE (16th most popular
project on SourceForge)
Arrrgh. Thought that sounded a bit too high.
Wrong column, i
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Bruce Momjian kirjutas P, 26.01.2003 kell 05:07:
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 req
Bruce Momjian kirjutas P, 26.01.2003 kell 05:07:
> 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
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
Curtis Faith wrote:
> tom lane writes:
> > You think we should drive away our existing unix developers
> > in the mere hope of attracting windows developers? Sorry, it
> > isn't going to happen.
>
> Tom brings up a good point, that changes to support Windows should not
> add to the tasks of tho
Jan Wieck writes:
> We focused on porting the programs. The goal was to have PostgreSQL
> running native on Win32 for a user. Having a nice and easy maintainable
> cross platform config, build and test environment for the developers is
> definitely something that still needs to be done (hint, hint
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 02:01, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Maybe because most of the machines in the world (by a titanic landslide)
> are Windoze boxes.
On the desktop, yes. On the server, no. PostgreSQL is nore intended for a
server, no? I can see the utility in having a development installatio
tom lane writes:
> You think we should drive away our existing unix developers
> in the mere hope of attracting windows developers? Sorry, it
> isn't going to happen.
Tom brings up a good point, that changes to support Windows should not
add to the tasks of those who are doing the bulk of the w
> -Original Message-
> From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:54 PM
> To: Brian Bruns; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
>
>
> Brian Bruns wrote:
>
> >P
Brian Bruns wrote:
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.
Correct.
I wonder why we need a Windows port
sentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jan Wieck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Postgres development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM
> Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
>
>
> > Jan Wieck wr
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "Al Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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
> > e
"Al Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 develope
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 develope
gres development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
>
&
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 t
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 th
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 b
Hi,
I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the
patches mailing list.
If you are not subscribed to the patches list you can download them from
http://www.janwieck.net/win32_port
Jan
--
#==#
# It's
24 matches
Mail list logo
