Re: Missing directory when building 8.2.3-base

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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