From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)refractions(dot)net> |
Cc: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy |
Date: | 2002-05-09 17:05:58 |
Message-ID: | 200205091705.g49H5wX01718@saturn.janwieck.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Paul Ramsey wrote:
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > No matter what steps you take, cygwin will not be seen by Windows users as
> > anything but a sloppy/messy/horrible hack. It is a fact of life. You are
> > welcome to disagree, but I assure you it is true.
>
> Just to clarify here: is it confirmed that having the complete cygwin
> distribution is a necessary condition to having a running PostgreSQL on
> windows? Is it not possible that, having built postgresql with the full
> cygwin, it would be possible to make a nice clean setup.exe package
Well, PostgreSQL goes as far as using system(3) to do "cp -r"
and stuff. Dunno what you call it, but I'd say it's making
assumptions that one shouldn't make :-)
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-05-09 17:09:24 | Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy |
Previous Message | cbbrowne | 2002-05-09 17:02:33 | Re: How much work is a native Windows application? |