Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-22 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Dann Corbit
> -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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Brian Bruns
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Tom Lane
"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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Stephan Szabo
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Al Sutton
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. > &