| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Kevin Flanagan <kevin-f(at)linkprior(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks? |
| Date: | 2010-03-05 09:31:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4B90CF85.2000202@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Craig Ringer
> <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>
>> How do _you_ go about building server extensions for Pg? Where do you
>> get the headers for gettext etc?
>
> Same place I get the binaries - gnuwin32 mostly.
>
>> I'm increasingly thinking the win32 package _should_ be split into
>> server binary and separate headers+pdb+sources packages, with the sdk
>> package including gettext headers and sources too. It'd be a LOT easier
>> to develop with Pg on win32 this way.
>
> How does breaking it up into multiple packages make it easier?
What I was trying to say was "if you don't want to include gettext in
the main download, perhaps splitting all the dev files into a separate
package would permit you to add gettext and the rest".
I don't much like the fact that presently users have to go hunting for
the libraries, with not even a pointer included in the sources about
where they should look to find headers matching the shipped libraries,
and what version they need.
Why _not_ distribute gettext headers, though? Sources I can understand
for size reasons, but the headers are small and fuss free, and you need
the _right_ _versions_ to build against the Pg backend.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2010-03-05 09:37:25 | Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks? |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2010-03-05 09:16:16 | Re: Visual Studio 2005, C-language function - avoiding hacks? |