Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7160.1151011339@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Bort, Paul wrote: >>> so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone >>> say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it? >> >> IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be >> around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than >> PG 7.3. > 1.3 was announced in May 2001 according to the cygwin announce mailing > list archives, so I think we can safely ignore the section in question. OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens. I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test the results on Windows did the patch ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: