[pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin installer name under Windows

2004-02-04 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
Dear Dave, Given the large number of sites where pgAdmin will be registered, it would be better to provide the latest pgadmin installer for Windows under the same name (=no versioning). Some sites recommend this. Example: pgadmin3.zip (or whatever). This shall not stop us from also providing

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin installer name under Windows

2004-02-04 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 February 2004 10:00 To: Dave Page Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pgAdmin installer name under Windows Dear Dave, Given the large number of sites where pgAdmin will be registered, it would be

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin installer name under Windows

2004-02-04 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
Le Mercredi 4 Février 2004 11:03, Dave Page a écrit : No problem, just add a symlink to the current version. Interesting. After replication, do FTP servers support simlinks? We should try to see what happens. Jean-Michel ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin installer name under Windows

2004-02-04 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Jean-Michel POURE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 February 2004 10:05 To: Dave Page Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pgAdmin installer name under Windows Le Mercredi 4 Février 2004 11:03, Dave Page a écrit : No problem, just add a symlink to the

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin3 in BSD ports...

2004-02-04 Thread Miha Radej
Isn't it 2.4.2, according to this (I've just updated my ports collection prior to executing the following command, so this as current as it gets)? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/ports]$ make search name=pgadmin3 Port: pgadmin3-1.0.1_1 Path: /usr/ports/databases/pgadmin3 Info: PostgreSQL database

Re: [pgadmin-hackers] pgAdmin3 in BSD ports...

2004-02-04 Thread Andreas Pflug
Miha Radej wrote: Isn't it 2.4.2, according to this (I've just updated my ports collection prior to executing the following command, so this as current as it gets)? That stuff is gtk1.2, i.e. not 2.0 and probably not unicode. Regards, Andreas ---(end of