On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:35:42PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
/* Get the OpenSSL structure associated with a connection. Returns NULL for
* unencrypted connections or if any other TLS library is in use. */
extern void *PQgetssl(PGconn *conn);
We are under no compulsion to emulate
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:42:20PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
ODBC uses it as well. It really uses it for communication. As far as
Google Code Search can it's the only one that does.
But if the intention is to do it by adding new functions, we can and
let the ODBC guys sort it out
On 02/19/2011 01:42 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:35:42PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
/* Get the OpenSSL structure associated with a connection. Returns NULL for
* unencrypted connections or if any other TLS library is in use. */
extern void *PQgetssl(PGconn
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:42:20AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Could we provide an abstraction layer over whatever SSL library is in
use with things like read/write/poll? Maybe that's what you had in mind
for the passthrough mode.
The suggested interface was as follows. It basically
On lör, 2011-02-19 at 13:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
If you plug in a libpq that was compiled against, say,
NSS under a psql that's expecting OpenSSL you'll get a null back
instead of a pointer to an SSL object, but then that would be a silly
thing to do.
Not so silly if you consider
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:01, charles.mcdev...@emc.com wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It
On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:33:19PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Maybe we really should consider moving to NSS insread?
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/
If it solves the license problem, it is well supported etc..
For
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
This is supported. Where it goes wonky is that this also has to work
when the connection is via SSL. So libpq provides a function to return
(via a void*) a pointer to the OpenSSL structure so that
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:51, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
This is supported. Where it goes wonky is that this also has to work
when the connection is via SSL. So libpq provides a function
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/17/2011 04:09 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
This is supported. Where it goes wonky is that this also has to work
when the connection is via SSL. So libpq provides a function to return
(via a void*) a pointer to the
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
Per:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
only major platform that supports libedit but our default is readline.
Unfortunately readline is not
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Greg Stark
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Jason Earl je...@notengoamigos.org wrote:
This will be a significant advantage for
further free software development, and some projects will decide
to make software free in order to use these libraries.
You've misread this paragraph. Postgres is
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
acceptable so things like EDB's products, or
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake j...@commandprompt.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stephen Frost
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Depends on your definition of distribute (and what part you are
specifically referring to). There's no tarball, but the installer
sources are on
Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
Depends on your definition of distribute (and what part you are
specifically referring to). There's no tarball, but the installer
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
click installers.
Well, there is what the community is risking, and there is what the
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
Well, we are going down a slippery slope if we think the click-through
installers are OK to use readline and distribute because we supply the
source for the installers --- that then requires anyone using the
binaries (or libraries) in those installers
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I just posted on this. The risk is to people using the packages --- the
packages themselves include the source as an option, so they are fine,
but everyone using those packages would also be required to distribute
source, which is a restriction we
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
Well, we are going down a slippery slope if we think the click-through
installers are OK to use readline and distribute because we supply the
source for the installers --- that then requires
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I just posted on this. The risk is to people using the packages --- the
packages themselves include the source as an option, so they are fine,
but everyone using those packages would also be
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
*that* I couldn't tell you..
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what native windows line editing ability are you
referring to?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what native windows line editing ability are you
referring to?
There is native Windows editing like arrows, etc and
On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what native windows line editing ability are you
referring to?
There is native
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what native windows line editing ability are you
On 02/17/2011 11:58 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
When did it? Ad what native
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:58 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:44 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 11:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
psql used to use the native Windows line editing ability --- has that
changed?
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
OK, I was only responding to Stephen Frost who said psql did not behave
like other Windows apps.
I don't actually run psql or PG on Windows at all, I just presumed it
did since you were bringing up concerns about it in the Windows
installers. Ah well,
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
works as expected.
Uh, don't we have a psql built via MSVC? Doesn't it work interactively?
Not if
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
I just posted on this. The risk is to people using the packages --- the
packages themselves include the source as an option, so they are fine,
but everyone using those packages would also be
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
works as expected.
Uh, don't we have a psql built via MSVC? Doesn't it
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 10:49 +, Dave Page wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
click installers.
Actually, we don't. We used to, but we don't at this point.
Depends
On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
works as expected.
Uh, don't we
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 04:33:19PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Maybe we really should consider moving to NSS insread?
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/
If it solves the license problem, it is well supported etc..
For the record, which library you choose only matters for a
On 02/17/2011 12:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/17/2011 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
FWIW, the only interactively usable version of psql for windows I know
of is the one that runs under Cygwin. It can be build with readline and
works as expected.
Uh, don't
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We have code that exists in both psql and the backend (cf src/port/)
so I'm not sure this really will satisfy the more rabid GPL partisans.
And this whole
On 02/16/2011 12:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
We have code that exists in both psql and the backend (cf src/port/)
so I'm not sure this really will satisfy the more
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 12:29 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Can someone take ownership of this, get involved with the libedit folks,
get Debian to use their fixes, and solve this problem for us?
That is a lot easier said that done. To be frank, I thought it was
something that I
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 15:01 +0200, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 13:52 +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Consider providing debian packages at debian.postgresql.org
apt.postgresql.org, please. :)
APT is not necessarily tied to Debian, nor is a Debian package
repository necessarily
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 02/16/2011 12:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Can someone take ownership of this, get involved with the libedit folks,
get Debian to use their fixes, and solve this problem for us?
You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely the existence of an
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream NetBSD
libedit: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libedit/?sortby=date
And a third who periodically packages that at
On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 00:28 +, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream NetBSD
libedit: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libedit/?sortby=date
And a third
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
dependence on the one with an unreasonable license (OpenSSL).
Hm?
The trouble with readline is that it's
Greg Stark gsst...@mit.edu writes:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There appear to be two people working periodically on the upstream NetBSD
libedit: http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/lib/libedit/?sortby=date
And a third who periodically
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
dependence on the one with an
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
Huh?
In what way would we not be in compliance? Or rather, what part of the
GPL would we
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't believe anyone would,
and certainly don't agree with it.
Whereas,
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:53 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't believe
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I agree w/ the other responses to this, in particular from Stark, but I
just wanted to point out that we're much more likely to come across
other GPL-licensed things that we want to support linking against (and
who might
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 20:53 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue
Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
Huh?
In what way would we not be in compliance? Or rather, what
Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
I agree w/ the other responses to this, in particular from Stark, but I
just wanted to point out that we're much more likely to come across
other GPL-licensed things that we want to support linking
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue that
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
matter
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
matter Pokertracker's all include other proprietary
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Perhaps we should make configure print a warning for each
non-Postgres-license software it's being configured to use with a
pointer to the license for the configured. That might make it more
obvious to people that while Postges is licensed under a given
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't believe anyone would,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
* Greg Stark (gsst...@mit.edu) wrote:
Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
philosophy has been that commercial
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
click installers.
Well, there is what the community is risking, and there is what the
packagers are risking. Ideally we would make the job easier for the
Jason,
* Jason Earl (je...@notengoamigos.org) wrote:
Or he could just read this essay from the FSF website:
Which is all about the GPL's can't be *more* restrictive
requirement. That doesn't apply in this case, sorry. Reading back
through the thread from December of 2000, I see the same was
On Wed, Feb 16 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net writes:
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
I've never heard anyone argue that
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
from what I can see upstream libedit actually has utf8 support for a while
now (as well as some other fixes) but the debian libedit version (and also
the one of other distributions) is way too old for that so
On 02/15/2011 12:37 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:12 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
from what I can see upstream libedit actually has utf8 support for a while
now (as well as some other fixes) but the debian libedit version (and also
the one of other
--On 15. Februar 2011 18:52:04 +0100 Stefan Kaltenbrunner
ste...@kaltenbrunner.cc wrote:
well I have not actually tested - I was just reading the changelog on
http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/ which claims UTF8 support (whatever
that means) in the current code drop.
I tested
Dimitri,
On 02/12/2011 11:18 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Are you volunteering? ;)
Once upon a time, I started such an approach, see packages.bluegap.ch.
However, I didn't upgrade these packages for quite some time, because I
didn't need them anymore
Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch writes:
Once upon a time, I started such an approach, see packages.bluegap.ch.
However, I didn't upgrade these packages for quite some time, because I
didn't need them anymore for my day job. I received at least two mails
thanking me for this service. (And
On 02/14/2011 10:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hey, wanna join the fun? That'd be awesome :)
Sure, I'll try to help. Don't be surprised if that's not too often,
though. I currently cannot promise to provide packaging in any kind of
timely fashion. :-(
Well in fact if you install a
2011/2/14 Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch:
On 02/14/2011 10:23 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Hey, wanna join the fun? That'd be awesome :)
Sure, I'll try to help. Don't be surprised if that's not too often,
though. I currently cannot promise to provide packaging in any kind of
timely
Cédric,
thanks for taking a step back and bringing in the bigger picture.
On 02/14/2011 11:57 AM, Cédric Villemain wrote:
one way might be to suggest apt-preferences here, I believe.
Agreed, might be the cleanest way from a technical POV.
Is debian.postgresql.org to host and distribute the
Hi,
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
only major platform that supports libedit but our default is readline.
Unfortunately readline is not compatible
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 13:37, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
Hi,
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we are the
only major platform that supports libedit
2011/2/14 Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 13:37, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch wrote:
Hi,
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
It seems we may have a problem to consider. As far as I know, we
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 13:52 +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Consider providing debian packages at debian.postgresql.org
apt.postgresql.org, please. :)
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community:
2011/2/14 Devrim GÜNDÜZ dev...@gunduz.org:
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 13:52 +0100, Cédric Villemain wrote:
Consider providing debian packages at debian.postgresql.org
apt.postgresql.org, please. :)
sure !!!
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL :
Hello all,
thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Markus Wanner [2011-02-14 13:37 +0100]:
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
Note that the recent discussions happened on bug 608442, in particular
Martin,
On 02/14/2011 02:08 PM, Martin Pitt wrote:
thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Sure.
Note that the recent discussions happened on bug 608442, in particular
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=608442#30
Thanks for this pointer.
Markus Wanner
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Martin Pitt mp...@debian.org wrote:
thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Markus Wanner [2011-02-14 13:37 +0100]:
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607109
Note that the recent
Markus Wanner wrote:
Anybody realized that this Debian bug (and several others) got closed in
the mean time (Sunday)? According to the changelog [1], Martin Pitt
(which I'm CC'ing here, as he might not be aware of this thread, yet)
worked around this issue by pre-loading readline via LD_PRELOAD
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I'll be happy if you do, but why haven't I haven't noticed, say, RedHat
taking this line?
Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
(And yes, we have real
On 02/14/2011 08:27 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
Markus Wanner wrote:
Anybody realized that this Debian bug (and several others) got closed in
the mean time (Sunday)? According to the changelog [1], Martin Pitt
(which I'm CC'ing here, as he might not be aware of this thread, yet)
worked around this
* Stephen Frost:
* Greg Smith (g...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
-GNU libreadine is certainly never going to add an OpenSSL exemption
I really wish they would, that's just them being obnoxious- it's already
LGPL, after all..
Source? I've only seen GPLed copies. We wouldn't face this issue
with
* Florian Weimer (fwei...@bfk.de) wrote:
Source? I've only seen GPLed copies. We wouldn't face this issue
with LGPL code.
Yeah, Greg corrected me on this already.
So we have both FSF folks *and* OpenSSL people being foolish.
Sigh.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On 02/14/2011 02:26 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Martin Pittmp...@debian.org wrote:
thanks Markus for CC'ing me, I'm not on -hackers@.
Markus Wanner [2011-02-14 13:37 +0100]:
On 02/10/2011 11:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
What the RPM packaging does is run this (approximately):
Well building the debian package also run make check. My question is if
that's enough QA here for us?
The other side of things if that we will need to provide for a debian
repository with support
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:09, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
What the RPM packaging does is run this (approximately):
Well building the debian package also run make check. My question is if
that's enough QA here for us?
Don't the RPM
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
I think i386 and amd64 are enough, really. We could add more later if
necessary, but i don't think we need to.
Ok.
I assume this can be easily virtualized - e.g. having one VM for each
version and just boot it up, update all dependencis, build, and
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:56:03PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yes, since according to a comment somewhere the same issue will
bubble
into ubuntu soon. At this point, definitely 8.04 and 10.04, and
probably 10.10. If things can be easily
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org writes:
As pbuilder just runs debootstrap on --create and (Debian) debootstrap
supports the Ubuntu releases, this is not an issue.
Great. It seems that a single amd64 build VM would allow us to build
all those binary packages for i386 and amd64, for several
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
(And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these issues.)
If we really believe that the debian interpretation of the licence issue
here is moot, surely the easiest action is to offer a
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
(And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these issues.)
If we really believe that the debian
charles.mcdev...@emc.com wrote:
The GNU people will never be 100% satisfied by anything you do to psql,
other
than making it GPL.
Readline is specifically licensed in a way to try to force this (but many
disagree
with their ability to force this).
The GNU people are perfectly
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 22:46, Dimitri Fontaine dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr
wrote:
If we really believe that the debian interpretation of the licence issue
here is moot, surely the easiest action is to offer a debian package
repository hosted in the
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
Now, what I think I would do about the core package is a quite simple
backport of them, using Martin's excellent work. Do we want our own QA
on them? If yes, I think I would need some help here, maybe with some
build farm support for running from our debian packages
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:04:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
(And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these issues.)
Is their opinion public/can be made public? This might possibly lead to
a re-evaluation of the situation
Michael Banck wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 06:04:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Less narrow-minded interpretation of GPL requirements, perhaps.
(And yes, we have real lawyers on staff considering these issues.)
Is their opinion public/can be made public? This might possibly lead to
a
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
