Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

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.

regards, tom lane