Re: Win32 port patches submitted

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> Indeed.  I think the goal here is to have a port that *runs* in native
> Windows; but I see no reason not to require Cygwin for *building* it.

Agreed.  I don't mind Cygwin if we don't have licensing problems with
distributing a Win32 binary that used Cygwin to build.  I do have a
problem with MKS toolkit, which is a commerical purchase.  I would like
to avoid reliance on that, though Jan said he needed their bash.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073