Re: [PATCHES] patch win32.mak of libpq

Hiroshi Saito wrote:
>>>> Ok. So there are actually two ways to go about it:
>>>> 1) Discontinue support for MSVC6 and require MSVC8
>>>>
>>>> 2) Change it so that MSVC6 can still build libpq, just not with SSPI
>>>> support. This can be done by conditionally enabling ENABLE_SSPI, so
>>>> it's
>>>> not that hard.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, if we go with option 2, is it something that anybody
>>>> actually will *use*?
>>>
>>> I desire 1 as formal. However, It contains VC7.1 and VC8.
>>> Moreover, libpq.dll can be used by the module of VC6.
>>
>> Is there any actual reason to keep VC7.1 support?
>
> It is still used and has sufficient function. Then, Inoue-san is
> developing in the environment.:-)
> The project file of VC7.1 differs from VC8 a little. However, nmake.exe
> absorbs it.
> for the reasons, we are maintaining win32.mak. but, project file offers
> the minimum function
> in simple. MSDTC is a reason for being somewhat more complicated than
> standard compile.

Ok. Just to be clear, do you need MSVC7.1 support, or do you need
win32.mak/nmake support? I realize they both work here, but if we
changed something else that needed MSVC8 but maintained the win32.mak
file, would that be enough?

Inoue-san, I'd be interested in knowing exactly what it is that is the
problem with MSVC8, if it's easy enough to outline?

>> 1) Does ODBC *require* a MSVC6 build libpq.dll?
>> 2) Can ODBC work with MVC8 built libpq, but ODBC is built with MSVC6?
>> 3) Can ODBC be built with MSVC8 and use the MSVC8 built libpq?
>>
>> It would be unfortunate if ODBC has to ship with a different set of
>> dependencies than libpq, but as long as they build with either VC6 or
>> VC8 that shouldn't happen.
>>
>> 1 above would be really bad, but I'm 99% sure that's not so, since I've
>> actually tested SSPI auth with such a libpq.
>>
>> IMO, the best option would be 3, but I don't know enough about the ODBC
>> driver to comment on there. I'll CC this to the odbc list so we can get
>> more input from other people there.
>
> I'm sure that 3 is sufficient. I will begin the preparation.
> Of course, if there is a problem, though it will be corrected.

Great. Let me know if you need any assistance.

//Magnus