Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
On Wednesday 22 January 2003 02:01, Dann Corbit wrote: Maybe because most of the machines in the world (by a titanic landslide) are Windoze boxes. On the desktop, yes. On the server, no. PostgreSQL is nore intended for a server, no? I can see the utility in having a development installation on a Win32 box, though. people to do it. Usually Open Source guys run *NIX Taken a poll lately? If Microsoft has its way there won't be any Open Source on Windows. Well, PostgreSQL might squeak by due to the BSD license, but other licenses aren't so fortunate, and GPL is anathema to Microsoft. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. Al. - Original Message - From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Postgres development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. 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. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. Al. - Original Message - From: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Postgres development [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:40 PM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Jan Wieck writes: I just submitted the patches for the native Win32 port of v7.2.1 on the patches mailing list. I'm concerned that you are adding all these *.dsp files for build process control. This is going to be a burden to maintain. Everytime someone changes an aspect of how a file is built the Windows port needs to be fixed. And since the tool that operates on these files is probably not freely available this will be difficult. 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. A lot of the porting aspects such as substitute implemenations of the C library functions could be handled nearly for free using the existing infrastructure and this whole patch would become much less intimidating. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Al Sutton wrote: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. I see the Win32 patch as a great oppertunity to attract more eyes to the code, and don't want the oppertunity to be lost because of the build requirements. The problem is that when either side (unix developer or windows developer) wants to do anything that changes the build procedure, the other side breaks until someone makes the appropriate changes on the other build. Unless some committer is going to commit to looking over patches to dsp files and making makefile changes and vice versa or we were to require that anyone that wants to change build procedure must make both sets of changes, I'd think this is going to be a mess. And in the latter case, I think you're going to lose developers as well. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Al Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. You think we should drive away our existing unix developers in the mere hope of attracting windows developers? Sorry, it isn't going to happen. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Tom Lane wrote: Al Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would back keeping the windows specific files, and if anything moving the code away from using the UNIX like programs. My reasoning is that the more unix tools you use for compiling, the less likley you are to attract existing windows-only developers to work on the code. You think we should drive away our existing unix developers in the mere hope of attracting windows developers? Sorry, it isn't going to happen. A compromise is a solution that makes all sides equally unhappy ... so we should convert our build environment to ANT? Hey, just kidding ;-) Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
Brian Bruns wrote: Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Correct. I wonder why we need a Windows port. I think it is more pain than sense. In case of Windows I'd rely on a binary distribution and a piece of documentation telling how the source can be built. I don't expect many people to do it. Usually Open Source guys run *NIX Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. In case of SAP DB they use a tool kit for building http://www.sapdb.org/develop/sap_db_development.htm It is truly painful to build it - even on UNIX (I haven't tried on Windows and I won't try in the future). As far as I have seen it throughs millions of compiler warnings. Regards, Hans -- *Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig* Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75 www.postgresql.at http://www.postgresql.at, cluster.postgresql.at http://cluster.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at http://www.cybertec.at, kernel.cybertec.at http://kernel.cybertec.at ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted
-Original Message- From: Hans-Jürgen Schönig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 10:54 PM To: Brian Bruns; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted Brian Bruns wrote: Problem is, nobody builds packages on windows anyway. They just all download the binary a guy (usually literally one guy) built. So, let's just make sure that one guy has cygwin loaded on his machine and we'll be all set. /tougue in cheek Correct. I wonder why we need a Windows port. Maybe because most of the machines in the world (by a titanic landslide) are Windoze boxes. I think it is more pain than sense. In case of Windows I'd rely on a binary distribution and a piece of documentation telling how the source can be built. Sounds like a Windows port to me. How is this Windows build going to be created without a Windows port? I don't expect many people to do it. Usually Open Source guys run *NIX Taken a poll lately? Sorry, couldn't help myself...Seriously, it's a cultural thing, I wouldn't plan on a mighty hoard of windows database developers who are put off by loading cygwin. I do wonder what the requirements are for building commercial db's that run on unix and windows. I imagine they are similarly off-putting if it were an option. In case of SAP DB they use a tool kit for building http://www.sapdb.org/develop/sap_db_development.htm It is truly painful to build it - even on UNIX (I haven't tried on Windows and I won't try in the future). As far as I have seen it throughs millions of compiler warnings. It was simple to build. And if you don't want to build it, they have binary distributions. I have SAP/DB running on this machine (along with SQL*Server, PostgreSQL, DB/2, Oracle, Firebird and a few others) SAP DB is or can be used for SAP (basically, it's a port of Adabas). That makes it kind of important, for obvious reasons. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
