| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
|---|
| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Adam H(dot) Pendleton" <fmonkey(at)fmonkey(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: wxWindows Build |
| Date: | 2003-06-26 15:14:31 |
| Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B844B151@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam H. Pendleton [mailto:fmonkey(at)fmonkey(dot)net]
Sent: 26 June 2003 16:04
To: Dave Page
Cc: pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxWindows Build
Dave Page wrote:
Yeuch. Have we completely removed the 2.4 target now?
How about the Mac port is non-Unicode only for now?
Regards, Dave.
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean can we stil use wxMac
2.4? I have no idea; I don't know why the requirement for wxWindows 2.5
exists. I always assumed pgAdmin3 used some feature of wxWindows that
required 2.5. If that's not the case, I will happily move back to 2.4.
If Unicode support is the only reason to use 2.5, then sure, we can
support a non-Unicode Mac version, for know. Whatever the solution, let
me know what you decide. Right now I am trying to solve the QB and Mac
problems, so that we can have them ready when we release.
Hi Adam,
As far as I am aware it is just the Unicode support that we use 2.5 for.
BTW, when I can persuade it to install, I should have a FreeBSD 5.1 box
to play with - albeit a pretty slow one!
Regards, Dave
| From: | Andreas Pflug <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | "Adam H(dot) Pendleton" <fmonkey(at)fmonkey(dot)net>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wxWindows Build |
| Date: | 2003-06-27 20:44:58 |
| Message-ID: | 3EFCACCA.9010501@web.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
> As far as I am aware it is just the Unicode support that we use 2.5 for.
Nope.
The dialog metrics are vastly improved in 2.5, so gtk really looks the
same as win32. Most strings won't fit in gtk if 2.4 if used, the fonts
are really messed up.
Still, I wonder about this version discussion. AFAIR we simply have
--with-wx, and evaluate the version that's stored there.
Regards,
Andreas