Win32 native port

Hi,

I think this would be interesting for many postgresql users.

The opensource database market is moving where quick at the moment, see
the sh*t with sapdb and mysql. So it would be very interesting if there
is a free alternative for windows and linux in the near future, because
some customers still use windows for some strange reason.

Like Joerg I would like to offer support if needed.

Thanks to everyone working for opensource.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

Alexander Schulz

--------------------------------------------------------------------
solutionary GmbH, Reuchlinstrasse 10-11, 10553 Berlin,
http://www.solutionary.de
mail: alexander.schulz@solutionary.de
tel 030.343462.40 / fax 030.343462.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] Im Auftrag von Joerg
Hessdoerfer
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2003 12:31
An: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Betreff: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really
like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was
talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with
initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp.
Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it.
Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we
are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from

PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale
test
scenarios.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on
the
on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better,
some
hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some
others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Greetings, and thank you all for a great DB in the first place,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Joerg Hessdoerfer kirjutas T, 02.09.2003 kell 13:30:

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp. Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it. Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from
PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale test
scenarios.

...

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Currently the whole PGSQL/Win32-for-v7.4-or-perhaps-7.5-or-8.0 saga does
indeed seem like a microsoftesqe ploy to scare off commercial
PGSQL/Win32 vendors and keep postgresql an UNIX-only thing ;)

-----------------
Hannu

'k ... quick and dirty summary .. Bruce will probably add to it, but I
know he's busy ... he's so busy that some of the stuff that we put in
place for the Win32 hasn't even been announced yet :)

First, there was a branch created a couple of weeks ago: WIN32_DEV that
you can access via anon cvs ... this is where work in Win32 is going to
happen until its ready to be brought back into the mainstream, and is
based on code from "date: 2003/08/08 17:17:17" (or thereabouts) ...

Second, we created a list specifically for those wishing to dive into and
work on this: pgsql-hackers-win32 ...

Things are in beta right now, which means that most of the developers time
is being spent hardening up for v7.4, but that doesn't preclude anyone
from diving into that branch and submit'ng patches for it ... in fact, if
you are kind enough to put WIN32_DEV in teh subject on postings to
-patches, I'll happily merge in those patches to free up some of Bruce's
time ...

Right now, I'm the only one on the win32 list, so don't expect my heated
discussions from me ... I'm a Unix guy, don't even have a Win box setup
for compiling :)

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp. Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it. Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from
PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale test
scenarios.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on the
on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better, some
hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Greetings, and thank you all for a great DB in the first place,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Alexander Schulz wrote:

Hi,

I think this would be interesting for many postgresql users.

The opensource database market is moving where quick at the moment, see
the sh*t with sapdb and mysql. So it would be very interesting if there
is a free alternative for windows and linux in the near future, because
some customers still use windows for some strange reason.

Like Joerg I would like to offer support if needed.

Thanks to everyone working for opensource.

Mit freundlichen Gr�ssen

Alexander Schulz

--------------------------------------------------------------------
solutionary GmbH, Reuchlinstrasse 10-11, 10553 Berlin,
http://www.solutionary.de
mail: alexander.schulz@solutionary.de
tel 030.343462.40 / fax 030.343462.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] Im Auftrag von Joerg
Hessdoerfer
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2003 12:31
An: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Betreff: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really
like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was
talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with
initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp.
Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it.
Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we
are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from

PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale
test
scenarios.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on
the
on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better,
some
hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some
others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Greetings, and thank you all for a great DB in the first place,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:

Joerg Hessdoerfer kirjutas T, 02.09.2003 kell 13:30:

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp. Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it. Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from
PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale test
scenarios.

...

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Currently the whole PGSQL/Win32-for-v7.4-or-perhaps-7.5-or-8.0 saga does
indeed seem like a microsoftesqe ploy to scare off commercial
PGSQL/Win32 vendors and keep postgresql an UNIX-only thing ;)

-----------------
Hannu

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

'k ... quick and dirty summary .. Bruce will probably add to it, but I
know he's busy ... he's so busy that some of the stuff that we put in
place for the Win32 hasn't even been announced yet :)

First, there was a branch created a couple of weeks ago: WIN32_DEV that
you can access via anon cvs ... this is where work in Win32 is going to
happen until its ready to be brought back into the mainstream, and is
based on code from "date: 2003/08/08 17:17:17" (or thereabouts) ...

Second, we created a list specifically for those wishing to dive into and
work on this: pgsql-hackers-win32 ...

Things are in beta right now, which means that most of the developers time
is being spent hardening up for v7.4, but that doesn't preclude anyone
from diving into that branch and submit'ng patches for it ... in fact, if
you are kind enough to put WIN32_DEV in teh subject on postings to
-patches, I'll happily merge in those patches to free up some of Bruce's
time ...

Right now, I'm the only one on the win32 list, so don't expect my heated
discussions from me ... I'm a Unix guy, don't even have a Win box setup
for compiling :)

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp. Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it. Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from
PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale test
scenarios.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on the
on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better, some
hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Greetings, and thank you all for a great DB in the first place,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Alexander Schulz wrote:

Hi,

I think this would be interesting for many postgresql users.

The opensource database market is moving where quick at the moment, see
the sh*t with sapdb and mysql. So it would be very interesting if there
is a free alternative for windows and linux in the near future, because
some customers still use windows for some strange reason.

Like Joerg I would like to offer support if needed.

Thanks to everyone working for opensource.

Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen

Alexander Schulz

--------------------------------------------------------------------
solutionary GmbH, Reuchlinstrasse 10-11, 10553 Berlin,
http://www.solutionary.de
mail: alexander.schulz@solutionary.de
tel 030.343462.40 / fax 030.343462.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] Im Auftrag von Joerg
Hessdoerfer
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. September 2003 12:31
An: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Betreff: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really
like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was
talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with
initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp.
Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it.
Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we
are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from

PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale
test
scenarios.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on
the
on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better,
some
hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some
others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Greetings, and thank you all for a great DB in the first place,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:

Joerg Hessdoerfer kirjutas T, 02.09.2003 kell 13:30:

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp. Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it. Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from
PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale test
scenarios.

...

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Currently the whole PGSQL/Win32-for-v7.4-or-perhaps-7.5-or-8.0 saga does
indeed seem like a microsoftesqe ploy to scare off commercial
PGSQL/Win32 vendors and keep postgresql an UNIX-only thing ;)

-----------------
Hannu

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
The most reliable support for the most reliable Open Source database.

So far as I'm aware Joerg, we didn't have enough time to get all the Win32
stuff done for 7.4, and it was felt (rightly so) that it wasn't worth
holding off on 7.4 to get it in.

At the moment, the main developers are doing nothing but fixing bugs in 7.4
as we are now in feature freeze.

Once 7.4 final has been released, work will continue on Win32, and I see no
reason (since there have been many offers of help) why it wouldn't be done
for 7.5.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on

the

on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better,

some

hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

I have no idea of the answers to these questions! Bruce is your man for
them.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@hub.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:13 PM
To: Joerg Hessdoerfer; Alexander Schulz; Hannu Krosing
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

First, there was a branch created a couple of weeks ago: WIN32_DEV

that

you can access via anon cvs ... this is where work in Win32 is going

to

happen until its ready to be brought back into the mainstream, and is
based on code from "date: 2003/08/08 17:17:17" (or thereabouts) ...

Great news! Do you know if this branch contains up to date (and
complete) versions Bruce and Jan's work?

Second, we created a list specifically for those wishing to dive into

and

work on this: pgsql-hackers-win32 ...

I'm going to see what I can get started. To the other posters, my
understanding of the status:

Win32 port compiles but not links.
Port generally based on the SRA, not the PeerDirect version, except for
the threading support, which was removed.
The build environment is MinGW (win32 port of GNU compiling tools i.e.
gcc, make, configure, etc.). IIRC the MinGW environment also includes C
runtime libraries.
The main missing parts are signals and fork/exec. The Microsoft signals
can't be used (via source or binary) without introducing a compiling
dependency on Microsoft compilers and are incomplete anyways for pg's
needs (out of spec handling of integer div/0 for example). Personally I
think fork/exec should be easy but signals will be tougher. Does
anybody know of a BSD licensed signal implementation that compiles on
win32?

Happy Hacking,
Merlin

Does anybody know of a BSD licensed signal implementation that
compiles on win32?

See how Apache handles this problem (via APR?).

-sc

--
Sean Chittenden

I sent signal code to Bruce Momjian that can be freely used in the
project. It compiles on Win32 and has been contributed as BSD license.

The architecture is a bit different from what had already been
accomplished, so I don't know how hard it will be to splice it in.

Dann Corbit wrote:

I sent signal code to Bruce Momjian that can be freely used in the
project. It compiles on Win32 and has been contributed as BSD license.

The architecture is a bit different from what had already been
accomplished, so I don't know how hard it will be to splice it in.

I need to create a project page. I will try to do that today. It has
been on my schedule for 3 weeks.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

So far as I'm aware Joerg, we didn't have enough time to get all the Win32
stuff done for 7.4, and it was felt (rightly so) that it wasn't worth
holding off on 7.4 to get it in.

At the moment, the main developers are doing nothing but fixing bugs in 7.4
as we are now in feature freeze.

Once 7.4 final has been released, work will continue on Win32, and I see no
reason (since there have been many offers of help) why it wouldn't be done
for 7.5.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on

the

on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better,

some

hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

I have no idea of the answers to these questions! Bruce is your man for
them.

This will all be on the web page, hopefully today.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

[moved to pgsql-hackers-win32 where it seems to belong]

Last time I looked at Apache APR it seemed to be good for a major
headache, if not brain damage.

I did send some info to the hackers list a few months ago - my
understanding is that the way (or one way) to do this is via the Windows
messaging layer, if we have access to that. Windows does have signals,
but not enough of them. This can't be rocket science - and we can't be
the first people to need to solve it.

cheers

andrew

Dann Corbit wrote:

OK, I have created a Win32 project page that contains all relevant
information:

http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html

I have CC'ed this to the new native win32 port mailing list as well.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

Hi!

After holding my breath for quite a while, it bursts out... I'd really like to
get a status update on said port.

The reason is, it's seemingly put on hold for me. After this port was talked
over on the list, there seemed to be an explosion of effort, with initial
success stories. I did read things like 'it compiles on MinGW' etc. pp. Now,
the issue seem pretty much dead - no more talk *at all* about it. Questioners
who wanted to get into development themselves where brushed off - 'we are
stuck there and there, but you can't help anyway' was the tenor.

Well, I am very interested in this port, and actually ran the betas from
PeerDirect (beta3 mostly), which performed quite well in small-scale test
scenarios.

So, I'd just like to ask the people involved to give a small summary on the
on-going(?) efforts, and possibly an open-points list, and even better, some
hints how to get involved myself(!).

Questions would be:
- does it compile?
- on which compiler?
- which branch in CVS to use?
- what are the most needed open points?
- is anyone actively working on those?

... you get the idea.

Anyway, please don't take this mail as an offense, I (and quite some others)
*really* just want to know, and perhaps help out!

Greetings, and thank you all for a great DB in the first place,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

just made sure the -win32 list is added to archives as well ...

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Hi!

Thanks to all who have replied (privately or via the list), it seems sometimes
it's just necessary to be a bit insistant!

That said, I'm positively surprised by what has been done already (especially
Bruce and Marc, this is really a GoodThing to have the web page and the
list).
I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment (how the
heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...), and then
I'll go adventuring in the code.

Thanks again, all. Looking forward to seeing you on the -win32 list.

Greetings,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

Joerg Hessdoerfer kirjutas N, 04.09.2003 kell 10:22:

I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment (how the
heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...)

there is a precompiled bison in the MinGW filelist
http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml#hdr2

dunno about flex ;(

, and then
I'll go adventuring in the code.

--------------
Hannu

Hi,

On Thursday 04 September 2003 10:13, Hannu Krosing wrote:

there is a precompiled bison in the MinGW filelist
http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml#hdr2

dunno about flex ;(

[...]

--------------
Hannu

Thanks, I should have seen it. Well, anyway, with bison installed flex
compiles ootb.

Greetings,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

Hi!

Thanks to all who have replied (privately or via the list), it seems sometimes
it's just necessary to be a bit insistant!

That said, I'm positively surprised by what has been done already (especially
Bruce and Marc, this is really a GoodThing to have the web page and the
list).
I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment (how the
heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...), and then
I'll go adventuring in the code.

Thanks again, all. Looking forward to seeing you on the -win32 list.

Uh, I should have mentioned that on the web page --- I will now. I
normally mount the Unix file via Samba and run everthing from there so I
can run bison/flex and CVS from Unix, and just do the compiles via
Win32.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

Joerg Hessdoerfer writes:

I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment (how the
heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...),

Use the Cygwin tools.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net

Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

Hi!

Thanks to all who have replied (privately or via the list), it seems sometimes
it's just necessary to be a bit insistant!

That said, I'm positively surprised by what has been done already (especially
Bruce and Marc, this is really a GoodThing to have the web page and the
list).
I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment (how the
heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...), and then
I'll go adventuring in the code.

Thanks again, all. Looking forward to seeing you on the -win32 list.

Uh, I should have mentioned that on the web page --- I will now. I
normally mount the Unix file via Samba and run everthing from there so I
can run bison/flex and CVS from Unix, and just do the compiles via
Win32.

I have added a Compiling section to the web page:

http://candle.pha.pa.us/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:

Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.

"Use" in the sense of distributing applications linked against it,
yes.

In this case I don't think it's a problem. The output of 'flex' and
'bison' is not required to be GPL (there is a specific exception in
the Bison license for this), and we're not distributing any Cygwin
code, or any binaries linked with it, merely using it to generate
parts of the PG source tree.

-Doug

Doug McNaught wrote:

"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:

Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.

"Use" in the sense of distributing applications linked against it,
yes.

In this case I don't think it's a problem. The output of 'flex' and
'bison' is not required to be GPL (there is a specific exception in
the Bison license for this), and we're not distributing any Cygwin
code, or any binaries linked with it, merely using it to generate
parts of the PG source tree.

As you can see from the new "Compiling" web page, I just normally
compile under Unix, distclean, then Win32 compile via Samba.

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Use the Cygwin tools.

Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.

It does? I don't see it:

http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

Jon

Bruce Momjian writes:

As you can see from the new "Compiling" web page, I just normally
compile under Unix, distclean, then Win32 compile via Samba.

That isn't very efficient unless you have two machines or use something
like vmware.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed under the GPL
with source code available to all."

And this:
"Red Hat sells a special Cygwin License for customers who are unable to
provide their application in open source code form. For more
information, please see: http://www.redhat.com/software/tools/cygwin/,
or call 866-2REDHAT ext. 3007"

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Jensen [mailto:jon@endpoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 11:36 AM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Use the Cygwin tools.

Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.

It does? I don't see it:

http://cygwin.com/licensing.html

Jon

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed under the GPL
with source code available to all."

I sure did. My understand was, and someone else already mentioned, that
you're just using Cygwin to faciliate the build process, but that the
final executable does not use any part of Cygwin at all. Kind of like
using GNU Emacs to edit the code, but not including it in the
distribution. Maybe I'm wrong on that -- since I haven't and don't plan to
build PostgreSQL on Windows, I may have missed something.

Jon

On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 12:27:58PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote:

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed under the GPL
with source code available to all."

Basicly this means that if you're linked to cygwin1.dll, you have
to release your program under the GPL, else there is no
restriction.

It's just as normal gcc, it's not because you use gcc to compile
your program that your program has to be under the GPL too.

Kurt

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Jensen [mailto:jon@endpoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:32 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed

under the GPL

with source code available to all."

I sure did. My understand was, and someone else already
mentioned, that you're just using Cygwin to faciliate the
build process, but that the final executable does not use any
part of Cygwin at all. Kind of like using GNU Emacs to edit
the code, but not including it in the distribution. Maybe I'm
wrong on that -- since I haven't and don't plan to build
PostgreSQL on Windows, I may have missed something.

That may be the intent. But it does not agree with the wording. I
think it would be dangerous to use it.

Consider this fragment:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library,..."
What are:
1. 'the tools'

Are these the Cygwin tools? Are they your tools? Some combination?

2. 'compiled executables'

The cygwin executables? Your executables? Both?

3. 'the Cygwin library'

The library for cygwin1.dll? _All_ libraries distributed with Cygwin?
Something else?

All of these are extremely ambiguous. Are you willing to risk your
company's safety on your personal interpretation?

I have similar problems with the reading of the LGPL. The reading of
the actual contract words can give interpretations far more harsh than
the supposed original intent. A reasonable interpretation can mean that
LGPL is not different than GPL at all.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Jensen [mailto:jon@endpoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 4:32 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed under the GPL
with source code available to all."

I am fairly certain that (in English) this paragraph reads: "if your
software needs Cygwin.dll to run (or is static linked to cygwin runtime
libraries), it is GPL software."

I agree, I think cygwin flex and bison can be used without any licensing
issues. We are only concerned with the output of the software generated
from non-GPL input (another way of looking at it, do GPL work processors
produce only GPL documents?? viral, indeed!).

Merlin

Dann Corbit wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Jensen [mailto:jon@endpoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:32 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed

under the GPL

with source code available to all."

I sure did. My understand was, and someone else already
mentioned, that you're just using Cygwin to faciliate the
build process, but that the final executable does not use any
part of Cygwin at all. Kind of like using GNU Emacs to edit
the code, but not including it in the distribution. Maybe I'm
wrong on that -- since I haven't and don't plan to build
PostgreSQL on Windows, I may have missed something.

That may be the intent. But it does not agree with the wording. I
think it would be dangerous to use it.

Consider this fragment:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library,..."
What are:
1. 'the tools'

Are these the Cygwin tools? Are they your tools? Some combination?

2. 'compiled executables'

The cygwin executables? Your executables? Both?

3. 'the Cygwin library'

The library for cygwin1.dll? _All_ libraries distributed with Cygwin?
Something else?

All of these are extremely ambiguous. Are you willing to risk your
company's safety on your personal interpretation?

I have similar problems with the reading of the LGPL. The reading of
the actual contract words can give interpretations far more harsh than
the supposed original intent. A reasonable interpretation can mean that
LGPL is not different than GPL at all.

You have quoted out of context. Before the clause you quoted it says this:

"By default, all executables link against this library (and in the
process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). "

Native pg will NOT be linked against any cygwin libraries at all, and so
the following sentence which you quote does not apply.

Furthermore, there is a specific exemption below that says this:
---------------------------

In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits programs whose
sources are distributed under a license that complies with the Open
Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a without libcygwin.a
itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL.

This means that you can port an Open Source(tm) application to cygwin,
and distribute that executable as if it didn't include a copy of
libcygwin.a linked into it. Note that this does not apply to the cygwin
DLL itself. If you distribute a (possibly modified) version of the DLL
you must adhere to the terms of the GPL, i.e. you must provide sources
for the cygwin DLL.

See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html for the precise
Open Source Definition referenced above.

--------------------------

So even if we did link against libcygwin.a we'd be home free.

If there's any doubt (I have none) perhaps someone would like to contact
RedHat for a clarification.

cheers

andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew@dunslane.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 2:35 PM
To: Postgresql Hackers
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

Dann Corbit wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Jensen [mailto:jon@endpoint.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 1:32 PM
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 native port

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:

Did you read this:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software distributed

under the GPL

with source code available to all."

I sure did. My understand was, and someone else already
mentioned, that you're just using Cygwin to faciliate the
build process, but that the final executable does not use any
part of Cygwin at all. Kind of like using GNU Emacs to edit
the code, but not including it in the distribution. Maybe I'm
wrong on that -- since I haven't and don't plan to build
PostgreSQL on Windows, I may have missed something.

That may be the intent. But it does not agree with the wording. I
think it would be dangerous to use it.

Consider this fragment:
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library,..." What are:
1. 'the tools'

Are these the Cygwin tools? Are they your tools? Some combination?

2. 'compiled executables'

The cygwin executables? Your executables? Both?

3. 'the Cygwin library'

The library for cygwin1.dll? _All_ libraries distributed

with Cygwin?

Something else?

All of these are extremely ambiguous. Are you willing to risk your
company's safety on your personal interpretation?

I have similar problems with the reading of the LGPL. The

reading of

the actual contract words can give interpretations far more

harsh than

the supposed original intent. A reasonable interpretation can mean
that LGPL is not different than GPL at all.

You have quoted out of context. Before the clause you quoted
it says this:

"By default, all executables link against this library (and in the
process include GPL'd Cygwin glue code). "

Native pg will NOT be linked against any cygwin libraries at
all, and so
the following sentence which you quote does not apply.

You are making an assumption that the follwing sentence is only valid
under conditions of the first. That is nowhere stated. That connection
is only implied by your interpretation.

Furthermore, there is a specific exemption below that says this:
---------------------------

In accordance with section 10 of the GPL, Red Hat permits
programs whose
sources are distributed under a license that complies with the Open
Source definition to be linked with libcygwin.a without libcygwin.a
itself causing the resulting program to be covered by the GNU GPL.

This means that you can port an Open Source(tm) application
to cygwin,
and distribute that executable as if it didn't include a copy of
libcygwin.a linked into it. Note that this does not apply to
the cygwin
DLL itself. If you distribute a (possibly modified) version
of the DLL
you must adhere to the terms of the GPL, i.e. you must
provide sources
for the cygwin DLL.

See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html for
the precise
Open Source Definition referenced above.

--------------------------

And yet above in the original link it specifies that the open source
project must be GPL.
"This means that unless you modify the tools so that compiled
executables do not make use of the Cygwin library, your compiled
programs will also have to be free software DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE GPL
with source code available to all. " {emphasis mine}

So even if we did link against libcygwin.a we'd be home free.

If there's any doubt (I have none) perhaps someone would like
to contact
RedHat for a clarification.

cheers

andrew

Even a trivial and absurd lawsuit can have disastrous consequences.
Consider SCO verses IBM.

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian writes:

As you can see from the new "Compiling" web page, I just normally
compile under Unix, distclean, then Win32 compile via Samba.

That isn't very efficient unless you have two machines or use something
like vmware.

One quick solution would be to add the bison/flex output files to the
WIN32_DEV CVS tree. Do people want that?

-- 
  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, Pennsylvania 19073

Dann Corbit wrote:

You are making an assumption that the follwing sentence is only valid
under conditions of the first. That is nowhere stated. That connection
is only implied by your interpretation.

Not at all. the phrase "This means" clearly refers to what went before.

Even a trivial and absurd lawsuit can have disastrous consequences.
Consider SCO verses IBM.

Fine. You sit quaking with fear in your boots. I won't. BTW, according
to my legal theory *I* own all the code to Postgres. Bizarre? Sure, but
don't let that stop you worrying about it.

One more thing - there is a Cygwin port of Postgres that *is* linked
against Cygwin libraries - I haven't heard anybody suggesting that that
has infected us with GPLing the code.

Let's get real.

andrew

Hi,

On Friday 05 September 2003 00:17, you wrote:

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian writes:

As you can see from the new "Compiling" web page, I just normally
compile under Unix, distclean, then Win32 compile via Samba.

That isn't very efficient unless you have two machines or use something
like vmware.

One quick solution would be to add the bison/flex output files to the
WIN32_DEV CVS tree. Do people want that?

Well, another solution would be, as I did (thanks, Hannu!), to download the
compiled bison for MinGW, and compile current flex using this. This worked
perfectly for me.

I now have some other probs, mainly with port/thread.c and port.h, using a
'struct passwd' which I can find no definition for in WIN32. What did you do
to resolve this?

BTW, I'm running './configure --without-zlib --without-readline' from MSYS,
which seems fine for me.

Greetings,
Joerg
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com

On Thursday 04 September 2003 09:22, Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:

Hi!

Thanks to all who have replied (privately or via the list), it seems
sometimes it's just necessary to be a bit insistant!

That said, I'm positively surprised by what has been done already
(especially Bruce and Marc, this is really a GoodThing to have the web page
and the list).
I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment (how
the heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...), and
then I'll go adventuring in the code.

See the page : http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml

There are msys and mingw binary packages including bison and gettext.
If You have teouble with that, feel free to contact me (I have some experience
with that concerning I have succesfully compile pgAdmin on MinGW.

Regards !

On Thursday 04 September 2003 19:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Joerg Hessdoerfer writes:

I'm currently in the process of setting up my development environment
(how the heck do I get bison/flex to compile under MingW/MSYS? Oh my...),

Use the Cygwin tools.

There is no need for that, MinGW has bison and gettext packages.

Regards !

On Friday 05 September 2003 00:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Bruce Momjian writes:

As you can see from the new "Compiling" web page, I just normally
compile under Unix, distclean, then Win32 compile via Samba.

That isn't very efficient unless you have two machines or use something
like vmware.

One quick solution would be to add the bison/flex output files to the
WIN32_DEV CVS tree. Do people want that?

Bruce, Is that really necessary ?
See :
http://prdownloads.sf.net/mingw/bison-1.875.0-2003.02.10-1.exe
and
http://prdownloads.sf.net/mingw/gettext-0.11.5-2003.02.01-1.exe

I have installed bison with success. I'll try to get the WIN branch from CVS
later today, but I think that there is no reason why it should not work.

Regards !