Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

On Tuesday 03 May 2005 13:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> > 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.
>
> "Outside packagers"? What makes you think PG RPMs are built by outside
> packagers? The PGDG RPMs are certainly built by us, and Red Hat's PG
> RPMs are built by somebody named Tom Lane, and last I heard Oliver
> Elphick was handling the Debian packaging. We have more control over
> those things than you might think. What we don't have control over is
> what the PHP people choose to put in their tarball ... and that means
> there's a circularity problem if we try to merge plphp. I think you
> are blaming the messengers.
>

Don't get so defensive... I am well aware of the folks maintaining the pg
packages... I was talking about the php packagers.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL