Re: [mail] Re: Win32 port patches submitted

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(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Postgres development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)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(at)gmx(dot)net
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>