Re: beta3

On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >
> > Okay, how do we want to address/fix/test this?
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Lane writes:
> > >
> > > > The packaging problems need to be solved before we can build a release
> > > > candidate --- but I don't see why they should hold up beta3. beta2 has
> > > > the same problems, so beta3 wouldn't be a regression.
> > >
> > > Considering the history of how-do-we-get-the-docs-in-the-tarball problem,
> > > I'd like to see at least one beta where this works before shipping a
> > > release candidate. Otherwise I'll have no confidence at all that we're
> > > not going to ship the final release with last year's docs and no man
> > > pages.
>
> The best we can do at this point is to package my HTML files for beta3
> and see if we can test this for RC1. At least the tar.gz file itself
> will be added by the script, just not built on the same machine.

Is there a reason why it can't be built on the same machine, by the script
that builds the package itself? Is there something remaining missing on
the server that prevents this from happening?