Hi!

I would like to suggest that we retire some of the old Visual C++ build
infrastructure. Specifically, all the makefiles for VC++ 6.0 *except* libpq.

There is a point for keeping libpq - if you want to build a static
version, it's easier if you can use the same version. And it's also
required if you want to be able to use the PQtrace function. Therefor, I
suggest that we keep both the VC++ and Borland makefiles for libpq
(since we do seem to have someone touching the Borland stuff every now
and then we can keep it, but I wouldn't consider it "properly
maintained" :-P)


The argument for removing the rest of the support is that it will get us
away from having to maintain it :-) The build files can be generated
automatically for Visual C++ 2005 using the new code (and you can build
just the frontend part sif you want to), which is available as a free
download from MS.

Anybody think we need to keep those around?

//Magnus


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Hi.

Yeah, as for me, it is already mutual agreement.:-)
Everyone will be able to use it easily. It is important in the meaning that avoids
useless confusion. Moreover, the DEBUG function of VS2005 is very excellent.
I think great evolution of it. Thanks!!

Regards,
Hiroshi Saito

> I would like to suggest that we retire some of the old Visual C++ build
> infrastructure. Specifically, all the makefiles for VC++ 6.0 *except* libpq.
>
> There is a point for keeping libpq - if you want to build a static
> version, it's easier if you can use the same version. And it's also
> required if you want to be able to use the PQtrace function. Therefor, I
> suggest that we keep both the VC++ and Borland makefiles for libpq
> (since we do seem to have someone touching the Borland stuff every now
> and then we can keep it, but I wouldn't consider it "properly
> maintained" :-P)
>
>
> The argument for removing the rest of the support is that it will get us
> away from having to maintain it :-) The build files can be generated
> automatically for Visual C++ 2005 using the new code (and you can build
> just the frontend part sif you want to), which is available as a free
> download from MS.
>
> Anybody think we need to keep those around?
>
> //Magnus
>


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I would like to suggest that we retire some of the old Visual C++ build
> infrastructure. Specifically, all the makefiles for VC++ 6.0 *except* libpq.
>
> There is a point for keeping libpq - if you want to build a static
> version, it's easier if you can use the same version. And it's also
> required if you want to be able to use the PQtrace function. Therefor, I
> suggest that we keep both the VC++ and Borland makefiles for libpq
> (since we do seem to have someone touching the Borland stuff every now
> and then we can keep it, but I wouldn't consider it "properly
> maintained" :-P)
>
>
> The argument for removing the rest of the support is that it will get us
> away from having to maintain it :-) The build files can be generated
> automatically for Visual C++ 2005 using the new code (and you can build
> just the frontend part sif you want to), which is available as a free
> download from MS.
>
> Anybody think we need to keep those around?

Agreed on removal of non-libpq *.mak files.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings