Re: Pet Peeves?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

>> What logic would lead someone to separate pg_config from everything else?
>> Do people often just install the server and nothing else? Then what?

> This is actually *required* by Debian/Ubuntu packaging rules.

> The development environment must be packaged separately from shared libraries
> like libpq or else major snafus arise when a new soversion of libpq comes out.
> You need to be able to have both versions installed simultaneously (in case
> you have programs which require both) but that won't work if they both contain
> things like header files or executables.

I'm not sure I follow this. What makes pg_config so different from psql? I can't
imagine why it's not simply treated the same as pg_dump and psql. It's certainly
annoying to have to install a whole seperate package just to have access to it.

>> BTW I ran into the need for pg_config upon installing DBD::Pg.
>> Maybe DBD::Pg maintainer problem?

> Installing a package for DBD::Pg or building it? The former would indeed be a
> package bug.

AFAIK, no package has that problem. If there is one, someone raise a bug.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200902072126
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkmOQz8ACgkQvJuQZxSWSsh/1QCg/fTaxS2yT9tiyKEhb+NGLUkl
uhkAn0jEHN6NxxynaeTNEQ8+3bHrtCv/
=RKHl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----