Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Date: 2006-06-22 20:12:18
Message-ID: 449AF9A2.2090705@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.
If anyone hasn't upgraded their cygwin since then they probably have
more problems than this would give them.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2006-06-22 20:19:43 Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2006-06-22 20:08:19 Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions