| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Date: | 2005-05-03 17:09:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1115140141.24440.5.camel@camel |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 12:40, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Not really that ugly. It is just an extra compile step. Besides
> > you don't have to package it just because it is in the Tarball.
>
> Since you keep raising that point: Not packaging something is not a
> valid solution to something being hard to package.
>
Is telling the rpm maintainers to go fix their rpm's an option? As has
been hashed out before, the only thing that makes plphp different from
other pl's is that some of the current packagers are taking shortcuts
with the packaging scripts which introduces dependency issues. IMHO what
is included in the postgresql cvs and what is included in the main
tarball for postgresql should not be dictated by outside packagers.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-05-03 17:09:06 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-05-03 17:07:45 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-05-03 17:09:06 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-05-03 17:07:45 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |