Tom Lane wrote:
> Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But if both of these paragraphs are simultaneously true, then why put
> > *anything* in contrib?
>
> Don't say that too loudly, or Marc may take it upon himself to make it
> happen ;-).
Well, I hope he's not so eager to do so that he d
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If I find a wiz-bang library that allows me to do something cool very
> easily, and I write a some code that would be good for postgresql's
> contrib, are you saying that it would not be usable because of the
> requirement of the library that is not in
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But it is in (and used by) psql (as of 7.3.2).
Certainly. I don't see a problem with that as far as the source
distribution goes; you can build it with readline, libedit, or neither.
Binary distributions are another matter. I think a pretty good case
coul
On Thursday 03 April 2003 09:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> And its stubs are in the backend, of all places.
> >> Really? I must have missed that.
> > On Linux as compiled in Red Hat 9, at least:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lowen]$ ldd /usr/bin/postgres
> >
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> We have taken a policy decision to keep the PG core distribution
> (including contrib) straight BSD license --- and in my mind that
> definitely includes not depending on any outside functionality that is
> both (a) essential and (b) not available anywhere as BSD-licen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The issue is:
> Is the requirement of an LGPL library that is more than likely not already
> on your system a disqualification for a contrib function?
Yes.
Because the requirement of something that is more likely not found on
"usual" installations TOGETHER WITH that it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If I find a wiz-bang library that allows me to do something cool very
> easily, and I write a some code that would be good for postgresql's contrib,
> are you saying that it would not be usable because of the requirement of the
> library that is not included on standard
> mlw wrote:
>>
>> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >screen? We have a pure BSD alternative that we could even ship with
>> >our distro, time to retire the libreadline hooks.
>> >
>> >
>> I certainly didn't want to open up this can of worms, that's for sure.
>>
>> I have an amount of code that is LG
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> And its stubs are in the backend, of all places.
>> Really? I must have missed that.
> On Linux as compiled in Red Hat 9, at least:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lowen]$ ldd /usr/bin/postgres
> libreadline.so.4 => /usr/lib/libreadline.so.4 (0x401c6000)
T
mlw wrote:
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> >[...]
> >screen? We have a pure BSD alternative that we could even ship with our
> >distro, time to retire the libreadline hooks.
> >
> >
> I certainly didn't want to open up this can of worms, that's for sure.
>
> I have an amount of code that is LGPL, I would
Jan Wieck wrote:
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
If that is a real objective, I'm surprised.
The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can make it ... its
never been kept a secret ...
True. But not linking to LGPLd libs
Tom Lane wrote:
On other Unixoid systems you can link against BSD-license libc code, or
some-random-proprietary-license code from HP or Sun or whomever. glibc
doesn't have a monopoly in that sphere. But mlw is offering code that
will *only* run against a single implementation that is LGPL l
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
> > > > If that is a real objective, I'm surprised.
> > >
> > > The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can make it ... its
> > > never been kept a secret ...
> >
> > True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would
On Thursday 03 April 2003 00:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And its stubs are in the backend, of all places.
> Really? I must have missed that.
On Linux as compiled in Red Hat 9, at least:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lowen]$ ldd /usr/bin/postgres
libpam.so.0 => /l
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 21:59, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > "However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
> > > creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
> > > contains portions of the Library), rather than a
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And your point is?
> That everyone is being entirely too picky. Hey, we link against other
> things, too. Some aren't LGPL. The readline example is a good one,
> incidentally: it's GPL.
Yeah, it's an excellent example: there is an alternative implement
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 22:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Everyone does realize that on Linux PostgreSQL binaries link against
> > glibc, which is LGPL..
> And your point is?
That everyone is being entirely too picky. Hey, we link against other thin
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Everyone does realize that on Linux PostgreSQL binaries link against glibc,
> which is LGPL..
And your point is?
On other Unixoid systems you can link against BSD-license libc code, or
some-random-proprietary-license code from HP or Sun or whomeve
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 April 2003 18:11, Dann Corbit wrote:
> [snip]
> > > True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there.
>
> > I disagree. Because of the language in the LGPL:
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.txt
> >
> > I would not use
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 18:11, Dann Corbit wrote:
[snip]
> > True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there.
> I disagree. Because of the language in the LGPL:
> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.txt
>
> I would not use LGPL tools in any finished commercial project. For me
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If it won't work without your library then there's not much point in
>> putting it into contrib. Might as well just put it in your library
>> and distribute same as you have been doing.
>>
> I'm a little put off by this attitude, are you saying
On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 18:00, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there.
>
> Correct, we've always had libreadline support, as a compile option
Why is that relevant? libreadline is GPL'd, not LGPL'd.
Ch
[snip]
> a program in /contrib linking to an LGPL lib has never been
> an issue.
> Linking to LGPL libs doesn't encumber the software linking to it.
>
> > > If that is a real objective, I'm surprised.
> >
> > The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can
> make it ...
> > its ne
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > > If that is a real objective, I'm surprised.
> >
> > The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can make it ... its
> > never been kept a secret ...
>
> True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there.
Correct, we've alwa
mlw writes:
> I'm a little put off by this attitude, are you saying there are no LGPL
> dependencies in PostgreSQL or /contrib?
No, the point is, why put it in contrib when someone who wants to use it
has to download your library anyway. Then you might as well distribute
the module next to that
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, mlw wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> > >>The question is the requirement of a GPL library to bui
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, mlw wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> >>The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>My SOAP
On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, mlw wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> >>The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >>My SOAP/XML functio
Tom Lane wrote:
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
lot of code I h
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
> My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
> lot of code I have written that I wo
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 16:31, mlw wrote:
> I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
>
> My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
> lot of code I have written
I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
lot of code I have written that I would need to implement it.
Is there any
32 matches
Mail list logo
