> -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
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
> -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
21 matches
Mail list logo
