Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<B34839947C5FD2118D9100A0C9D5DE4305235F89@atl-nt-ex1.eclipsnet.com>
From:	"Reimer, Fred" <Fred DOT Reimer AT Eclipsys DOT com>
To:	Peter Eisentraut <peter_e AT gmx DOT net>,
	Jason Tishler
	<Jason DOT Tishler AT dothill DOT com>
Cc:	Bruce Momjian <pgman AT candle DOT pha DOT pa DOT us>,
	Cygwin
	<cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, pgsql-ports AT postgresql DOT org
Subject:	RE: [PORTS] [PATCH]: Building PostgreSQL 7.0.2 on Cygwin 1.1.4 (T
	ake 2)
Date:	Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:23:38 -0400
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

Stupid question, but why not?  If someone is going to install the latest and
greatest version of PostgreSQL why would it be unreasonable to expect them
to install the latest and greatest Cygwin also?  As a comparative example, I
don't think it's unreasonable for major Linux distributions to require the
presence of GLIBC as opposed to the old crustly libc v5.x.  And, I don't
think it's unreasonable for Microsoft to require the latest updates to their
shared libraries for use with Office 2000.  What am I missing here?  Maybe
I'm incorrectly equating the cygwin dll with a library, but that's certainly
my understanding.

Now if someone is using their PostgreSQL box as a development box then I
would assume that they would be using development versions.  I don't think
many people are using PostgreSQL in a production environment and also using
that same production environment for cygwin development.  IOW, I would hope
that "production" use of PostgreSQL was done on a "production" box and that
only the cygwin dll was necessary and not the whole cygwin programming
environment.  In that case, I don't see what would be the big deal with
requiring/providing a newer version of cygwin and "breaking" compatability
with old versions.

Someone set me straight please ;-)

Fred Reimer
Eclipsys Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-ports-owner AT hub DOT org [mailto:pgsql-ports-owner AT hub DOT org]On
Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 1:13 PM
To: Jason Tishler
Cc: Bruce Momjian; Cygwin; pgsql-ports AT postgresql DOT org
Subject: Re: [PORTS] [PATCH]: Building PostgreSQL 7.0.2 on Cygwin 1.1.4
(Take 2)


Jason Tishler writes:

> I was under the impression that my patch was being hand merged into the
> CVS since the tree has changed since 7.0.2.

I was under the impression that part of your patch was going to abandon
compatibility with Cygwin 1.0 and B20.  We can't do that.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e AT gmx DOT net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -