Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:10:27 +0100
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > Actually, that's why I only put the script in tools, and didn't
> > > modify anything else ... I didn't figure anyone would object to it
> > > being added in there, since, unlike the contrib stuff, it isn't
> > > actually tied anywhere in the build infrastructure :(
> >
> > Sure, but people who run security scanners over source archives, for
> > example, will notice it and will not know how it is tied in.
>
> Marc has already stated that he is o.k. with removing the offending
> code. Instead of flogging him, how about we just remove the code and
> mark it up for over zealousness.
I totally agree with the goal of removing split-dist. My vote goes for
taking the solution of removing the script, and introducing, in the
proper timing (i.e. during development, not late beta), a proper
solution (probably one involving a Make rule, similar to "make dist").
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
