Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Greg Stark wrote:
> >>
> >> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
> >> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributio
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
>> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
>
> Note that when you released your contri
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
> >> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
> >
> > Note that when you released your contribution
Greg Stark wrote:
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
imposed no suc
> -Original Message-
> From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:28 PM
> To: Greg Stark
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
>
>
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > im
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Greg Stark wrote:
>> imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a
>> Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they
>> would be free
>>to do
>I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort
>of way
Greg Stark wrote:
> imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
> Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free
to do
I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort
of way, if exactly that has not already been done by an uns
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone
> intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made.
Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that
imposed no such conditions.
#x27;; 'Claudio Natoli'; 'Andrew Dunstan'; 'pgsql-hackers-win32'; 'PostgreSQL-development'
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Steve Tibbett wrote:
I think users would prefer %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL - that's what
Mozilla
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:45:10AM -0500, Steve Tibbett wrote:
> The suggested location is %ProgramFiles%\CompanyName\ProductName but
> GNU products often don't have a "company", so some projects use GNU as
> the company name.
FWIW, this is not a GNU project ...
--
Alvaro Herrera ()
Jajaja! Solo
-
From: Jan Wieck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2004年2月2日 10:34
To: Steve Tibbett
Cc: 'David Garamond'; 'Dann Corbit'; 'Claudio Natoli'; 'Andrew Dunstan';
'pgsql-hackers-win32'; 'PostgreSQL-development
ogramFiles%\PostgreSQL.
- Steve
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Garamond
Sent: January 23, 2004 2:42 AM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Claudio Natoli; Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers-win32;
PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Garamond
Sent: January 23, 2004 2:42 AM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Claudio Natoli; Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers-win32;
PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>But for now I suggest that the defa
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In this way, no one ever has the rename file open while we are holding
> > the locks, and we can loop without holding an exclusive lock on
> > pg_shadow, and file writes remain in order.
>
> You're doing this where exactly, and are ce
Dann Corbit wrote:
> I may be able to help on the localization and path stuff. We have
> solved those issues for our port of 7.1.3, and I expect the work for 7.5
> to be extremely similar.
>
> Where can I get the latest tarball for Win32 development?
CVS HEAD now has all the Win32 work.
--
B
Dann Corbit wrote:
But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is
C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL
More properly:
%ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL
Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL (or even
%ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses %ProgramFiles%\Apache
Group\Apache2.
N
> Might I just suggest good old "C:\PostgreSQL" ?
>
> MS SQL server defaults to C:\MSSQL, so I don't think that a directory in
the
> root path is unreasonable. Further, it makes it look more important if it
> installs in the root directory :)
Don't do that. I hate software that does that. To me
> Where can I get the latest tarball for Win32 development?
There isn't a specific Win32 tarball, but you can get nightly snapshots from
the usual place (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/dev/), or pull down the tip
from CVS.
Reading back through the thread though, you'll find that the code is not y
> -Original Message-
> From: Claudio Natoli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:44 PM
> To: 'Andrew Dunstan '; 'pgsql-hackers-win32 ';
> 'PostgreSQL-development '
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKE
Hi all,
Might I just suggest good old "C:\PostgreSQL" ?
MS SQL server defaults to C:\MSSQL, so I don't think that a directory in the
root path is unreasonable. Further, it makes it look more important if it
installs in the root directory :)
All the best,
-David Felstead
Claudio Natoli wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> > * installation directory issues (/usr/local/pgsql/bin won't work too
> > well outside of the MingW environment :-)
>
>
> Clearly we will need an installer for a binary distribution.
Yes. To be more precise, my point was that doing so will req
21 matches
Mail list logo
