Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-22 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Brian Bruns
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Al Sutton
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Stephan Szabo
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Hans-Jürgen Schönig
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port patches submitted

2003-01-21 Thread Dann Corbit
-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