On lör, 2011-02-19 at 13:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> If you plug in a libpq that was compiled against, say,
> NSS under a psql that's expecting OpenSSL you'll get a null back
> instead of a pointer to an SSL object, but then that would be a silly
> thing to do.
Not so silly if you consider
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:42:20AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Could we provide an abstraction layer over whatever SSL library is in
> use with things like read/write/poll? Maybe that's what you had in mind
> for the passthrough mode.
The suggested interface was as follows. It basically exp
On 02/19/2011 01:42 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:35:42PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
/* Get the OpenSSL structure associated with a connection. Returns NULL for
* unencrypted connections or if any other TLS library is in use. */
extern void *PQgetssl(PGconn *c
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:42:20PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> ODBC uses it as well. It really uses it for communication. As far as
> Google Code Search can it's the only one that does.
>
> But if the intention is to do it by adding new functions, we can and
> let the ODBC guys sort it
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:35:42PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > /* Get the OpenSSL structure associated with a connection. Returns NULL for
> > * unencrypted connections or if any other TLS library is in use. */
> > extern void *PQgetssl(PGconn *conn);
> >
> > We are under no compulsion to emu
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> >> This is supported. Where it goes wonky is that this also has to work
> >> when the connection is via SSL. So libpq provides a function to return
> >> (via a void*) a pointer to the OpenSSL struc
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>> This is supported. Where it goes wonky is that this also has to work
>>> when the connection is via SSL. So libpq provides a function to return
>>> (via a void*) a
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> This is supported. Where it goes wonky is that this also has to work
>> when the connection is via SSL. So libpq provides a function to return
>> (via a void*) a pointer to the OpenSSL structure so that can be used t
On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:33:19PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Maybe we really should consider moving to NSS insread?
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/
If it solves the license problem, it is well supported etc..
For th
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:01, wrote:
>> On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
>> of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It
> On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
> of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
> works a
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:33:19PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Maybe we really should consider moving to NSS insread?
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/
>
> If it solves the license problem, it is well supported etc..
For the record, which library you choose only matters f
On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
works as expected.
Uh, don't we have
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 10:49 +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
> >> click installers.
> >
> > Actually, we don't. We used to, but we don't at this point.
>
> Depends on your
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
> >> of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
> >> works as expected.
> > Uh, don't we have a psql built via MSVC
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > I just posted on this. The risk is to people using the packages --- the
> > packages themselves include the source as an option, so they are fine,
> > but everyone using those packages would also b
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
works as expected.
Uh, don't we have a psql built via MSVC? Doesn't it work interactively?
Not if yo
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> OK, I was only responding to Stephen Frost who said psql did not behave
> like other Windows apps.
I don't actually run psql or PG on Windows at all, I just presumed it
did since you were bringing up concerns about it in the Windows
installers. Ah well,
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 11:58 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > psql used to use the native Windows line editing abilit
On 02/17/2011 11:58 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what "native" w
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
> >>> changed?
> >>
> >> When did it? Ad what "native" windows line
On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what "native" windows line editing ability are you
referring to?
There is native W
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
> > changed?
>
>
> When did it? Ad what "native" windows line editing ability are you
> referring to?
There is native Windows editing like arrows,
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what "native" windows line editing ability are you
referring to?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
> changed?
*that* I couldn't tell you..
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > I just posted on this. The risk is to people using the packages --- the
> > packages themselves include the source as an option, so they are fine,
> > but everyone using those packages would also b
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > Well, we are going down a slippery slope if we think the click-through
> > installers are OK to use readline and distribute because we supply the
> > source for the installers --- that then requires
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> I just posted on this. The risk is to people using the packages --- the
> packages themselves include the source as an option, so they are fine,
> but everyone using those packages would also be required to distribute
> source, which is a restriction we
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> Well, we are going down a slippery slope if we think the click-through
> installers are OK to use readline and distribute because we supply the
> source for the installers --- that then requires anyone using the
> binaries (or libraries) in those installe
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
> > > click installers.
> >
> > Well, there is what the community is risking, and there is what th
Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page wrote:
> >> Depends on your definition of "distribute" (and what part you are
> >> specifically referring to). There's no tarball, but the installer
> >> sources are on git.pos
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page wrote:
>> Depends on your definition of "distribute" (and what part you are
>> specifically referring to). There's no tarball, but the installer
>> sources are on git.postgresql.org.
>
> Oh, my bad
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
>> Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
>> philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
>> acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Jason Earl wrote:
> This will be a significant advantage for
> further free software development, and some projects will decide
> to make software free in order to use these libraries.
You've misread this paragraph. Postgres is already free (except f
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> -- Start of PGP signed section.
>>> > * Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
>>> > > Well for wha
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> -- Start of PGP signed section.
>> > * Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
>> > > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
>> > >
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
Per:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
only major platform that supports libedit but our default is readline.
Unfortunately readline is not compa
On Wed, Feb 16 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost writes:
>> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>>> In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
>>> to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
>
>> I've never heard anyone argue that position,
Jason,
* Jason Earl (je...@notengoamigos.org) wrote:
> Or he could just read this essay from the FSF website:
Which is all about the GPL's "can't be *more* restrictive"
requirement. That doesn't apply in this case, sorry. Reading back
through the thread from December of 2000, I see the same was
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
> > click installers.
>
> Well, there is what the community is risking, and there is what the
> packagers are risking. Ideally we would make the job easier
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > > * Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
> > > > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
> > > > philosophy has been that c
Stephen Frost writes:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
>> to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
> I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't believe anyone would,
> and certainly
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Stephen Frost wrote:
> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> > * Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
> > > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
> > > philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
> > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
> > philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
> > acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, o
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
> Perhaps we should make configure print a warning for each
> non-Postgres-license software it's being configured to use with a
> pointer to the license for the configured. That might make it more
> obvious to people that while Postges is licensed under a given
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
> Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
> philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
> acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
> matter Pokertracker's all include other propriet
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
>> philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
>> acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
>> matter Pokertracker's all i
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > > In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
> > > > to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
> > >
> > > I've never heard anyo
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I agree w/ the other responses to this, in particular from Stark, but I
> > just wanted to point out that we're much more likely to come across
> > other GPL-licensed things that we want to support linking against (and
>
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
> > to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
>
> Huh?
>
> In what way would we not be in compliance? Or rather, what part of t
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:53 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > > In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
> > > to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
> >
> > I've never heard
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I agree w/ the other responses to this, in particular from Stark, but I
> just wanted to point out that we're much more likely to come across
> other GPL-licensed things that we want to support linking against (and
> who might link against us
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:53 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
> > to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
>
> I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't b
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
> to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't believe anyone would,
and certainly don't agree with it.
> Whereas
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
> to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
Huh?
In what way would we not be in compliance? Or rather, what part of the
GPL would we be unable to com
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith writes:
>> I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
>> has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
>> dependence on the one with an unreasonable license (OpenSSL).
>
> Hm?
>
Greg Stark writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream NetBSD
>> libedit: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libedit/?sortby=date
>>
>> And a third who periodically packages that at
>> http://www.
Greg Smith writes:
> I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
> has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
> dependence on the one with an unreasonable license (OpenSSL).
Hm?
The trouble with readline is that it's GPL, not LGPL, and
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 00:28 +, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> > There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream NetBSD
> > libedit: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libedit/?sortby=date
> >
> > And a third who period
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream NetBSD
> libedit: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libedit/?sortby=date
>
> And a third who periodically packages that at http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/
I'm rea
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely the existence of an
identifiable group of "libedit folks". Last time I looked there was no
such group.
There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream
NetBSD libedit:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 02/16/2011 12:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Can someone take ownership of this, get involved with the libedit folks,
>> get Debian to use their fixes, and solve this problem for us?
> You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely the existence of an
> identifiable g
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 15:01 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 13:52 +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> > "Consider providing debian packages at debian.postgresql.org"
>
> apt.postgresql.org, please. :)
APT is not necessarily tied to Debian, nor is a Debian package
repository neces
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 12:29 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> Can someone take ownership of this, get involved with the libedit folks,
> get Debian to use their fixes, and solve this problem for us?
That is a lot easier said that done. To be frank, I thought it was
something that I
On 02/16/2011 12:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
We have code that exists in both psql and the backend (cf src/port/)
so I'm not sure this really will satisfy the more rabid GPL partisans.
And this whole discu
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> We have code that exists in both psql and the backend (cf src/port/)
> >> so I'm not sure this really will satisfy the more rabid GPL partisans.
> >> And this whole discussion is about satisfying the m
--On 15. Februar 2011 18:52:04 +0100 Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
well I have not actually tested - I was just reading the changelog on
http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/ which claims UTF8 "support" (whatever
that means) in the current code drop.
I tested it--enable-wc doesn't work as yo
On 02/15/2011 12:37 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
from what I can see upstream libedit actually has utf8 support for a while
now (as well as some other fixes) but the debian libedit version (and also
the one of other distributions) is way to
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
> from what I can see upstream libedit actually has utf8 support for a while
> now (as well as some other fixes) but the debian libedit version (and also
> the one of other distributions) is way too old for that so maybe most of the
> is
On 02/14/2011 02:26 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Markus Wanner [2011-02-14 13:37 +0100]:
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
N
* Florian Weimer (fwei...@bfk.de) wrote:
> Source? I've only seen GPLed copies. We wouldn't face this issue
> with LGPL code.
Yeah, Greg corrected me on this already.
So we have both FSF folks *and* OpenSSL people being foolish.
Sigh.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signa
* Stephen Frost:
> * Greg Smith (g...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
>> -GNU libreadine is certainly never going to add an OpenSSL exemption
>
> I really wish they would, that's just them being obnoxious- it's already
> LGPL, after all..
Source? I've only seen GPLed copies. We wouldn't face this issue
On 02/14/2011 08:27 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
Markus Wanner wrote:
Anybody realized that this Debian bug (and several others) got closed in
the mean time (Sunday)? According to the changelog [1], Martin Pitt
(which I'm CC'ing here, as he might not be aware of this thread, yet)
worked around this
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> I'll be happy if you do, but why haven't I haven't noticed, say, RedHat
>> taking this line?
>
> Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
> (And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these
Markus Wanner wrote:
Anybody realized that this Debian bug (and several others) got closed in
the mean time (Sunday)? According to the changelog [1], Martin Pitt
(which I'm CC'ing here, as he might not be aware of this thread, yet)
worked around this issue by pre-loading readline via LD_PRELOAD
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
>
> Markus Wanner [2011-02-14 13:37 +0100]:
>> On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
>
> Note that the recent discussions h
Martin,
On 02/14/2011 02:08 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
> thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Sure.
> Note that the recent discussions happened on bug 608442, in particular
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=608442#30
Thanks for this pointer.
> Markus Wanner [201
Hello all,
thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Markus Wanner [2011-02-14 13:37 +0100]:
> On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
Note that the recent discussions happened on bug 608442, in particular
http://bugs
2011/2/14 Devrim GÜNDÜZ :
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 13:52 +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
>> "Consider providing debian packages at debian.postgresql.org"
>
> apt.postgresql.org, please. :)
sure !!!
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, For
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 13:52 +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> "Consider providing debian packages at debian.postgresql.org"
apt.postgresql.org, please. :)
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~Postgr
2011/2/14 Magnus Hagander :
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 13:37, Markus Wanner wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
>>>
>>> It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
>>> only major
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 13:37, Markus Wanner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
>>
>> It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
>> only major platform that supports libedit but ou
Hi,
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
>
> It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
> only major platform that supports libedit but our default is readline.
> Unfortunately readline is not compat
Cédric,
thanks for taking a step back and bringing in the bigger picture.
On 02/14/2011 11:57 AM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> one way might be to suggest apt-preferences here, I believe.
Agreed, might be the cleanest way from a technical POV.
> Is debian.postgresql.org to host and distribute the
2011/2/14 Markus Wanner :
> On 02/14/2011 10:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>> Hey, wanna join the fun? That'd be awesome :)
>
> Sure, I'll try to help. Don't be surprised if that's not too often,
> though. I currently cannot promise to provide packaging in any kind of
> timely fashion. :-(
>
>
On 02/14/2011 10:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Hey, wanna join the fun? That'd be awesome :)
Sure, I'll try to help. Don't be surprised if that's not too often,
though. I currently cannot promise to provide packaging in any kind of
timely fashion. :-(
> Well in fact if you install a Postgr
Markus Wanner writes:
> Once upon a time, I started such an approach, see packages.bluegap.ch.
> However, I didn't upgrade these packages for quite some time, because I
> didn't need them anymore for my day job. I received at least two mails
> thanking me for this service. (And judging from the
Dimitri,
On 02/12/2011 11:18 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> Are you volunteering? ;)
Once upon a time, I started such an approach, see packages.bluegap.ch.
However, I didn't upgrade these packages for quite some time, because I
didn't need them anymore for my day job.
Michael Banck writes:
> As pbuilder just runs debootstrap on --create and (Debian) debootstrap
> supports the Ubuntu releases, this is not an issue.
Great. It seems that a single amd64 build VM would allow us to build
all those binary packages for i386 and amd64, for several debian and
ubuntu re
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:56:03PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > Yes, since according to a comment somewhere the same issue will
> > bubble
> > into ubuntu soon. At this point, definitely 8.04 and 10.04, and
> > probably 10.10. If things can be easily automated, it w
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I think i386 and amd64 are enough, really. We could add more later if
> necessary, but i don't think we need to.
Ok.
> I assume this can be easily virtualized - e.g. having one VM for each
> version and just boot it up, update all dependencis, build, and shut
> down? in
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:09, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Greg Smith writes:
>> What the RPM packaging does is run this (approximately):
>
> Well building the debian package also run make check. My question is if
> that's enough QA here for us?
Don't the RPM building guys (Hi, Devrim!) also run
Greg Smith writes:
> What the RPM packaging does is run this (approximately):
Well building the debian package also run make check. My question is if
that's enough QA here for us?
The other side of things if that we will need to provide for a debian
repository with support for at least lenny an
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Now, what I think I would do about the core package is a quite simple
backport of them, using Martin's excellent work. Do we want our own QA
on them? If yes, I think I would need some help here, maybe with some
build farm support for running from our debian packages rath
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46, Dimitri Fontaine
> wrote:
>> If we really believe that the debian interpretation of the licence issue
>> here is moot, surely the easiest action is to offer a debian package
>> repository hosted in the postgresql.org infrastructure.
>>
> A
> charles.mcdev...@emc.com wrote:
> > The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql,
> > other
> than making it GPL.
> > Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many
> > disagree
> with their ability to force this).
> >
>
> The "GNU people" a
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
>> (And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these issues.)
>
> If we really believe that the debian interpretation of the licence issue
> here is
Tom Lane writes:
> Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
> (And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these issues.)
If we really believe that the debian interpretation of the licence issue
here is moot, surely the easiest action is to offer a debian package
rep
charles.mcdev...@emc.com wrote:
The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql, other
than making it GPL.
Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many
disagree with their ability to force this).
The "GNU people" are perfectly content wit
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
