| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Hammond <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Missing directory when building 8.2.3-base |
| Date: | 2007-02-13 18:18:19 |
| Message-ID: | 45D200EB.5050501@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:16 pm, j(dot)(dot)(dot)(at)commandprompt(dot)com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>
>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>>> Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is this a known problem? Is there any test procedure that builds the
>>>> "base" distribution before release?
>>>>
>>> Most of the core team is convinced that the postgresql-foo tarballs are
>>> useless, but Marc insists on keeping them. But since they are nearly
>>> useless, no one tests them, so it is not surprising that they don't
>>> work.
>>>
>> Why do we keep them again? I can't recall at any point in the life of
>> CMD us ever using the -foo tarballs. Not to mention they just take up space.
>>
>> Let's dump them.
>>
>
> The FreeBSD database/postgres* ports depend on them. Which is probably
> why Marc insists on keeping them.
>
>
Well, I think that's a horrid dependency to have. Other packaging
systems (e.g. the RPM builds) seem quite able to split up a single
unified build into multiple packages - what can't FBSD? What would we do
if some other packaging system wanted to ask us for a different split?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-13 18:19:53 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-13 18:15:29 | Re: cuckoo is hung during regression test |