Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
For example there is NOT an PostgreSQL 8.1 for Ubuntu Breezy.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/breezy-backports/misc/
Thanks Peter :), I knew about backports but didn't know what was in
there. But what about when 8.2 comes out? Doubtful that they wil
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> For example there is NOT an PostgreSQL 8.1 for Ubuntu Breezy.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/breezy-backports/misc/
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Most people who run FreeBSD have no need for Mammoth, until possibly they
want to upgrade via ports to a new version of PostgreSQL but they don't
want to upgrade FreeBSD.
'k, up
I believe it was Lukas who mentioned elsewhere, this is not a vendor
nuetral
project. I actually am already working on a adding a list of os/package
options to the download page based on other feedback, are people
comfortable
allowing mammothpostgresql to go on that list? (I wouldn't be main
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Most people who run FreeBSD have no need for Mammoth, until possibly
they want to upgrade via ports to a new version of PostgreSQL but they
don't want to upgrade FreeBSD.
'k, up to now, you had me ... but what does upgrading
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 13 July 2006 15:39, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefi
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Most people who run FreeBSD have no need for Mammoth, until possibly
they want to upgrade via ports to a new version of PostgreSQL but they
don't want to upgrade FreeBSD.
'k, up to now, you had me ... but what does upgrading to a new version of
Pos
I believe it was Lukas who mentioned elsewhere, this is not a vendor nuetral
project. I actually am already working on a adding a list of os/package
options to the download page based on other feedback, are people comfortable
allowing mammothpostgresql to go on that list? (I wouldn't be main
On Thursday 13 July 2006 15:39, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
> >>> stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
> >>> distribution t
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Were trying man :) I have people building for most major distributions
at this point. We should have FreeBSD soon, as well as MacOSX.
How is this different (or better) than what is already in FreeBSD ports?
There is no functional difference. It
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Were trying man :) I have people building for most major distributions
> at this point. We should have FreeBSD soon, as well as MacOSX.
How is this different (or better) than what is already in FreeBSD ports?
---(end of broadcast)-
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
distribution that is more "and the kitchen sink" style. I do not know
exactly if Bizgre
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
distribution that is more "and the kitchen sink" style.
This has been suggested before
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
distribution that is more "and the kitchen sink" style. I do not know
exactly if Bizgres could be considered jus
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
distribution that is more "and the kitchen sink" style.
This has been suggested before ... nobody seems to want
Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry
stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a
distribution that is more "and the kitchen sink" style. I do not know
exactly if Bizgres could be considered just that? Or maybe it could get
promoted to be t
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2006 16:48 schrieb Jonah H. Harris:
> What I mean is I think it makes absolute sense to keep a very stable,
> very well maintained core PostgreSQL distribution which is that anyone
> should base their distributions on.
I don't want to get into an operating system bout here,
17 matches
Mail list logo
