Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The Artistic License doesn't even qualify as Free Software as far as the
> FSF is concerned.
Errr, http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html lists it as not
only Free Software but GPL-compatible.
Mike.
---(end of broadca
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
> >>
> >> You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
> >> License or the Artistic License
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
>>
>> You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
>> License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.
> Artis
Someone said earlier cvsup would have problems but the anonymous cvs would work
fine.
Well I've just had a weirdness reconfiguring and rebuilding my few weeks old
7.3dev tree and so deleted it and tried using the anoncvs to get pgsql. Running
configure gives me the error:
./configure: ./src/t
On Thursday 01 August 2002 05:22 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > It's already in CPAN. A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.
> > I also thought we were discussing trimming the tree; and that was a good
> > feeling.
> Lamar, you said earlier today:
> > And the sooner our very old
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:37 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
> > Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?
>
> It's already in CPAN. A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.
>
> I also thought we wer
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > Artistic License is fine, I think.
>
> The Artistic License doesn't even qualify as Free Software as far as the
> FSF is concerned.
>
> More generally, it is a different license, and that is a problem.
Well, our ODBC is LGPL. I wonder if E
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:37 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
> > Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?
>
> It's already in CPAN. A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.
>
> I
On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:37 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
> Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?
It's already in CPAN. A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.
I also thought we were discussing trimming the tree;
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund. We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> tarball. I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.
Please, no more Perl modules in our CVS! The ones we have are already
messy enough to build.
I thought we were talking about trimming the source t
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Artistic License is fine, I think.
The Artistic License doesn't even qualify as Free Software as far as the
FSF is concerned.
More generally, it is a different license, and that is a problem.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---(end of
On Thursday 01 August 2002 02:21 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like
> > > it. It is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the
> > > standard now.
> > I have been in contact wi
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
>
>You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
>License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.
Artistic License is fine, I think.
--
Bruc
Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it. It
> > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> >
> > I have been in contact with Edmund about mov
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it. It
> > > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> > >
> > > I have
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it. It
> > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> >
> > I have been in contact with Edmund about mov
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it. It
> > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
>
> I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> updating CPAN ourselves.
Lamar Owen wrote:
> And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it. It
> is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
updating CPAN ourselves. Should have a final answer soon.
On Thursday 01 August 2002 12:05 pm, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
> > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I
> > like it. It
> > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> This may sound like a dumb question, but DBD::Pg == DBI right ? not pg.pm
Ri
> And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I
> like it. It
> is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
>
This may sound like a dumb question, but DBD::Pg == DBI right ? not pg.pm
I code perl about 25 hours a week, and DBI has never failed me y
On Wednesday 31 July 2002 09:38 pm, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
> against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
> arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
> middle ground
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> ...
> > *Eventually*, a simple checkout of 'pgsql' should result in a "server
> > only" distribution that we can pull bits and pieces into transparently ...
>
> I'm still not quite sure where this is headed or why, but if nothing
> else pgsql could an
...
> *Eventually*, a simple checkout of 'pgsql' should result in a "server
> only" distribution that we can pull bits and pieces into transparently ...
I'm still not quite sure where this is headed or why, but if nothing
else pgsql could and should be the whole thing, and pgsql-server could
be t
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
> > against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
> > arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
> > middle ground
> Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
> against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
> arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
> middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ...
Personally, I'd l
Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ...
Basically, CVS let's you
27 matches
Mail list logo
