Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> What would we patch it with? I don't think anybody has found a problem > >> there, this is a separate file that you ship along with it. > > > Well, the problem is that it handles backslash incorrectly. We could > > patch that in the readline source rather than playing with a > > configuaration file. > > Do the readline developers agree that it's "incorrect"? I could see > shipping a patch as a short-term band-aid, but not if the patch isn't > going to be accepted upstream.
No idea. We need to develop the patch and submit it. > >> Even that may not be enough. This is the GPL we're talking about. > > > At that point, psql becomes GPL, no question. > > Which means it's not happening, no? To clearify, I meant the psql binary becomes GPL. When we build psql with readline, which is our default on many platforms, we are already be GPL'ing psql, at least according to the copyright holders, FSF. We are dynamic linking on many platforms, but according to the FSF, it makes it GPL. I do think that adding readline features to the Win32 psql doesn't warrant the license change for the psql binary. -- 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
