Return-Path: pg_adm@postgres.berkeley.edu Received: by postgres.Berkeley.EDU (5.61/1.29) id AA00995; Fri, 5 Feb 93 17:34:06 -0800 Message-Id: <9302060134.AA00995@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> From: Marc Teitelbaum Subject: Re: Concern about new building environment To: postgres@postgres.berkeley.edu Sender: pg_adm@postgres.berkeley.edu In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 22 Jan 93 11:39:05. Date: Fri, 05 Feb 93 17:33:44 PST AHEM!!.... I didn't send this message. Would whoever reposted this old message of mine please let me know, or at least please don't do that again. I don't mind old messages being reposted, but please don't make it look like *I* sent it. For one, the details of this response are geared to the eariler letter, not the current one. And two, I already replied to witr@rwwa.COM's message with a line by line response... Marc > (Message inbox:13751) > From: Marc Teitelbaum > Subject: Re: Concern about new building environment > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 11:39:05 PST > To: postgres@postgres.Berkeley.EDU > Return-Path: pg_adm@postgres.Berkeley.EDU > Sender: pg_adm@postgres.Berkeley.EDU > In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 22 Jan 93 09:22:51. > > The new make is of course being shipped directly with the > postgres source and will compile and run on the platforms > that we support. When porting to a new platform you will > have to make sure, obviousely, that the bmake compiles and runs > there too (its directly in the postgres source tree with a > V7 bootstraping makefile). The code is a whole lot more portable > than the postgres code itself, so if you have any problems porting > bmake, you can be sure you'll be spending 10 to 15 times as much > time porting the postgres code - so i wouldn't worry :) But, like I > said, it comes working with any supported platform. > > It's a much better solution, IMHO, than the imake solution that X > uses (in retrospect that is, I'm not bashing X for trying the > imake scheme). The make code does what we want and is freely > redistributable and available off uunet. I haven't seen the GNU > make, (and sorry john or rms) but the copyleft IS a restrictive > license compared to the freely redistributable BSD license on > bmake (actually, BSD just calls it make - *we* call it bmake). > When offered with a choice between a copyleft program and a > freely redistributable program of comparable quality, i will choose > the latter as it causes less headaches for the end users who > wish to reship the code. Putting a copyleft on a program is > a personal (and political) statement that anyone can make, but no one > should be forced to make. The university policy is to make > code freely redistributable with no strings and I support that > when there's no strong reason not to. > > Marc