Re: Win32 port patches submitted

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> 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 that *runs* in native
> Windows; but I see no reason not to require Cygwin for *building* it.

Agreed. I don't mind Cygwin if we don't have licensing problems with
distributing a Win32 binary that used Cygwin to build. 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.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073