Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bort, Paul wrote:
>>> so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions.  Can anyone
>>> say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it?
>> IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be
>> around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than
>> PG 7.3.

> 1.3 was announced in May 2001 according to the cygwin announce mailing 
> list archives, so I think we can safely ignore the section in question. 

OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens.

I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to
DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test
the results on Windows did the patch ...

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to