On 2/13/07, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> The FreeBSD database/postgres* ports depend on them. Which is
> probably why Marc insists on keeping them.
I hesitate to believe that seeing that they don't actually work, whereas
we have heard no complaints that the
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Andrew Hammond wrote:
> > The FreeBSD database/postgres* ports depend on them. Which is
> > probably why Marc insists on keeping them.
>
> I hesitate to believe that seeing that they don't actually work, whereas
> we have heard no complaints that the FreeBSD ports don't
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Hammond wrote:
>> The FreeBSD database/postgres* ports depend on them. Which is
>> probably why Marc insists on keeping them.
> I hesitate to believe that seeing that they don't actually work, whereas
> we have heard no complaints that the Fre
> > 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 c
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> The FreeBSD database/postgres* ports depend on them. Which is
> probably why Marc insists on keeping them.
I hesitate to believe that seeing that they don't actually work, whereas
we have heard no complaints that the FreeBSD ports don't work.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://d
Andrew Hammond wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("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
On Feb 12, 5:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("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-
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
Tom Lane wrote:
> There is no "-base version". The split tarballs are a convenience
> for downloading over slow lines; it is not intended that you can
> build after downloading just some of them.
It used to be possible to build at least the -base tarball
independently. But again, none of this w
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I built the "-base" version of 8.2.3 today, for installation at a company
> I'm helping out.
There is no "-base version". The split tarballs are a convenience for
downloading over slow lines; it is not intended that you can build after
downloadi
On Tue, February 13, 2007 01:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.
Well, hurray for
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 t
12 matches
Mail list logo
