Re: RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l)

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l)
Date: 2001-07-20 16:03:01
Message-ID: 200107201603.f6KG31V16164@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> On Friday 20 July 2001 11:25, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I am slightly concerned about bloating our CVS tree.
> The RPM additions are:
> 56 contrib-intarray.tar.gz
> 4 file-lists.tar.gz
> 180 jdbc7.0-1.1.jar
> 92 jdbc7.1-1.2.jar
> 8 migration-scripts.tar.gz
> 4 postgresql-7.1.plperl.patch
> 4 postgresql-7.1.s390x.patch
> 4 postgresql-bashprofile
> 4 postgresql-dump.1.gz
> 8 postgresql.init
> 20 README.rpm-dist
> 4 rh-pgdump.sh
> 8 rpm-pgsql-7.1.patch
>
> Of which the two jar files are derived from the source and wouldn't be
> necessary. This totals 124K if I've done my math right.

Bag the JAR's and it looks fine.

> The contrib-intarray.tar.gz is a new intarray from Red Hat -- I really need
> to investigate this more closely....

Can you research that? Why are they doing it?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-20 16:05:54 Re: Re: Examples of using bytea type
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2001-07-20 15:59:24 Re: VACUUM ANALYZE

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2001-07-20 16:28:33 Re: RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-07-20 16:02:21 Re: C functions