Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Need help with GTK bug
Hi Adam., and Raphaël. I spend time to be already considerable on this problem.:-( However, there is no good development. As for the root trunk of the problem, gtk Or wxWindows isn't clear, either. The control of mdi.cpp doesn't go well event-handler of wxMDIClientWindow can't be caught why.?? How is it in your platform? Or, good thought. It seems me that the coding of present QueryBuilder is right. But, This patch may become help to ascertain it. regards, Hiroshi Saito > From: "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Hi Hiroshi, > > > > It's better, but still not right as you say. > > Please keep it in the recognition of Dave because it is the middle. > > > There's obviously something > > screwed up with the GTK/MDI support in wxWindows :-( Shame none of their > > team wanted to help when I asked :-( > > I am very much disappointed at it, too. > This problem seems to be a maze... > But, we must solve it. > > > > > Are you continuing to work on this? > > Yes,It goes on though I can't take time easily. > > regards, > Hiroshi Saito QueryBuilder_patchN Description: Binary data ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
From: Adam H. Pendleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 November 2003 15:10To: Dave PageCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Andreas Pflug; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies Dave Page wrote: No. They cannot retroactively change the licence on what we already have. I was thinking more in terms of future wxWindows snapshots. Are we going to be stuck with what we currently have, or will we be able to integrate future wxWindows code? Yes, that may be a problem. IANAL, but I still maintain that even if there is just one of Andreas' patches in the code then they cannot relicence it without his approval (or removing the code and reimplementing it clean-room style) anyway. Same applies to any contributions of course. This is exactly why the pgAdmin II migration wizard is GPL and a seperate download - it is based on code from pgAdmin I which was GPL, and I couldn't contact all of the contributors. Regards, Dave.
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
Dave Page wrote: No. They cannot retroactively change the licence on what we already have. I was thinking more in terms of future wxWindows snapshots. Are we going to be stuck with what we currently have, or will we be able to integrate future wxWindows code? ahp
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
> -Original Message- > From: Adam H. Pendleton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 November 2003 13:30 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Dave Page; Andreas Pflug; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies > > Jean-Michel POURE wrote: > > >- Contributions to the wxWindows project will not be > licensed under a > >license (such as the "BSD-style" license) that allows > private ports to > >be distributed. > > > > > This sounds quite ominous considering that we do exactly that: > distribute a private port of wxWindows. Also, depending on > the license they choose to distribute wxWindows under, could > it cause problems with our product (i.e. GPL vs LGPL)? No. They cannot retroactively change the licence on what we already have. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
Le Mardi 18 Novembre 2003 14:29, Adam H. Pendleton a écrit : > This sounds quite ominous considering that we do exactly that: > distribute a private port of wxWindows. Also, depending on the license > they choose to distribute wxWindows under, could it cause problems with > our product (i.e. GPL vs LGPL)? Dear Adam, I don't know. Probably not very important because the assignements are illegal in most European countries. The most important point to me is that assignments are being put on hold, not canceled. Which means that the members of the board are well-aware that the assignments are not valid in European law, but still refuse to cancel them. Why can't they simply cancel the assignments and propose new/modified ones in one week or more? Everyone would probably sign back. I am tired of all this. Cheers, Jean-Michel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
Jean-Michel POURE wrote: - Contributions to the wxWindows project will not be licensed under a license (such as the "BSD-style" license) that allows private ports to be distributed. This sounds quite ominous considering that we do exactly that: distribute a private port of wxWindows. Also, depending on the license they choose to distribute wxWindows under, could it cause problems with our product (i.e. GPL vs LGPL)? ahp ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
> -Original Message- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 November 2003 09:53 > To: Dave Page > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies > > I'm very tired of discussing anything with certain wx people > being in charge of commitments; it's *much* less work > maintaining our periodic snapshots and applying the patches. Sad, but if it's easiest... Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
Dave Page wrote:
Still absolutely no, there's not a haze of work in committing
my patches, not even commenting on it.
Are you going to bother submitting more now they will probably reject
them out of hand anyway?
I'll still post patches, if I believe they are necessary. The last
message from Julian about this states "In any event, we will not pursue
copyright assignment to the point where the effort to do so causes
collateral damage and comes at the expense of valuable contributions to
the project. " and "Until we have further legal feedback (...) we will
be accepting patches and bug fixes in the normal way. "
Well, unfortunately the normal way only a single patch I posted in the
last months was accepted (by Robin), some are discussed in an academic
and puristic fashion ("I don't like this", "can't we have some fancy
inheritance way"), and most are simply not discussed at all.
I'm very tired of discussing anything with certain wx people being in
charge of commitments; it's *much* less work maintaining our periodic
snapshots and applying the patches.
Regards,
Andreas
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
Le Mardi 18 Novembre 2003 09:08, Dave Page a écrit : > For those that don't know, the wx team want all patch submitters to > sign over copyright etc. on their code - this is at request of Borland Dear all, To summarise what Andreas wrote on the wx list (from memory): the individual contributors signing the assignment bear all risks with no gain. My opinion is that Borland needs such an assignment for precise reasons on the long run. For example double-licensing or add-on products. Otherwise, the LGPL-compatible license would suffice. From the statement page, http://www.wxwindows.org/sf/lstatement.htm: << - At the same time, the Board acknowledges that unforeseeable changes and future events could cause a need to revise licensing policy to reflect changed reality, and the Foundation has the right to license the wxWindows code under different licenses or to allow additional, different licensing models. The Board does not currently know of any such events, but cannot rule out the possibility. - Contributions to the wxWindows project will not be licensed under a license (such as the "BSD-style" license) that allows private ports to be distributed. - Contributions to the WxWindows project will remain available under an open source license meeting the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition, with a single exception possible should significant legal problems develop with the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Open Source Definition. The Board hopes fervently that this exception never arises. >> Unreal !!! In my opinion, I don't see any statement explaining that wxWindows is a common single work. As there is no definition of the word "contribution", the main trunk of wxWindows can be double-licensed and contributions released under a Free license. Or Borland is going to buy developement time and release the work under proprietary licenses. As a result, we will never benefit from Borland "help" and "protection". This is very clear reading the statement page. Now, to understand the wxTeam mind, ask: "Dear Sir, can I cancel the illegal assignment now and sign again in one week?" (the assignment is completely illegal in Europe) And you will probably get the answer: "Thanks for donating your work ... We are working on a new assignment ... Bye, bye" On the list, I have been asking for "public" discussions. I don't see any. As usual, everything is discussed in the back doors. Who is working on a new assignment: Borland? Is Borland the center of the world? People interested in canceling the assignment can visit: http://wiki.wxwindows.org/wiki.pl?Rantings You don't have to be ashamed to say "No". Question : "Can I own your house provided that you live in it for free?" Answer : "No". Cheers, Jean-Michel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
Le Lundi 17 Novembre 2003 21:55, Raphaël Enrici a écrit : > I think Adam is right regarding dependencies, it's not usefull (and can > get you to mistake if packages change) to specify all these > dependencies. FYI Debian's dependencies I use are these (I cut debian > specific things) > > Build-Depends: libgtk2.0-dev, gcc, g++, libjpeg62-dev, libpng-dev (>> > 1.2.0) | libpng12-dev (>> 1.2.0) | libpng2-dev , libtiff3g-dev Dear Adam, Raphaël, Andreas With your explanations, it seems that: - Build Time dependencies are quite limited, - We are going to stick to wxGTK2ud. So, I agree with you all. This is the power of the Internet, we can discuss and arrive to a solution pretty quickly. Thank! Adam: I am not very familiar with conditional statements in RPM specs. Could you give me an example of a conditional statement in an RPM spec? I will work out the dependencies for other systems. About Andreas patches: I hope that they will be integrated quite fast. I don't understand the logic behind all this. It seems "unreal" to keep a broken wxWindows for a long time. Cheers, Jean-Michel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies
> -Original Message- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 November 2003 23:23 > To: Adam H. Pendleton > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] wxGTK2ud BuildRequires dependencies > > Adam H. Pendleton wrote: > > >>So are we going to be using the official wxWindows RPMs > from now on? > >>Are we going to run into any problems since we currently > use a build > >>of wxWindows that differs from the "official" build? > >> > >> > Still absolutely no, there's not a haze of work in committing > my patches, not even commenting on it. Are you going to bother submitting more now they will probably reject them out of hand anyway? (For those that don't know, the wx team want all patch submitters to sign over copyright etc. on their code - this is at request of Borland). Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
