Re: [HACKERS] Missing headers Windows NT port

I'm not sure what the cygwin32 environment entails, but I'm a Windows
programmer (since Windows 2.0!) and I want to produce a Win32-native
version of PostgreSQL anyway.  I was waiting until the 6.4 excitement died
down.  Looks like Joost beat me to the punch.  :-) 

Aha, I read Joost's reply as I was reading this.  I know that the GNU
thing is a problem for PG'ers.  But if we can get the code working, Joost,
I can go back and un-GNU it.  That is, I can do what I was planning on
doing anyway -- do a Win32 port without anybody else's tools.  It will
help immensely if we start seeing what will go wrong under Windows.  See
where I'm coming from?  BTW: what compiler are you using for this effort?

But I agree that a Win32 port would get PG into the "hands of the masses."
My current needs are that it run on Solaris and NT, but I'd *like* it to
run well on 95 as well.

Michael

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, David Hartwig wrote:

> I'm impressed so far.
> 
> Getting ahead of myself...
> 
> What the overhead of the cygwin32 environment?  (price, etc.)
> 
> This would make a nice binary distribution,  eh?    Such a distribution could
> put PostgreSQL in the hands of many.
> 
> 
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > [Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > Hi Magnus,
> > >
> > > I found a working (enough) implementation. In fact This afternoon I
> > > succeeeded in a complete compile just ip to "All of PostgreSQL is
> > > successfully made. Ready to install."
> >
> > Wow, that's pretty amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>