From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: phase 2 of wxWidgets 2.9 build |
Date: | 2011-02-02 14:00:03 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim-Og+h4_WX=2hDx12J4OK5ntUh9TEXeUJS7s72@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On 2 February 2011 08:06, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> I like 2 best. Let's choose that one :-)
Heh, okay.
>> 4. The OGL Problem itself. The task of talking to contributors and
>> getting them to re-licence is ongoing. I suppose we'll have to
>> integrate OGL, and build it as part of our own build system. Should I
>> get started on this in anticipation of the re-licensing going ahead?
>> It would be nice if our Makefile just invoked a separate
>> makefile/build system for OGL, so OGL remained self-contained and
>> could easily be used by third parties.
>
> I think you should assume we'll go ahead. Every response so far has
> been positive, including the leading contributor who is responsible
> for 99% of the code.
That's what I thought.
> I don't think we should spend time trying to separate the build. We're
> not trying to maintain this for third party users - most of them will
> find the published code usable. It's only a problem for those of us
> with BSD style licences, and even they could just replace our
> module.mk files with the equivalent for their projects in a matter of
> minutes, much as we will replace the bakefile.
>
> Will you use the code that Julian sent you, or stick with the original?
I'm going to work with Julian's new code.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2011-02-02 15:18:08 | Re: phase 2 of wxWidgets 2.9 build |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2011-02-02 13:00:30 | Re: pgAdmin III commit: Unbreak the windows installer (grrrr Magnus!) |