Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> The biggest patching by far is
> in the regression tests, which really are not designed to live outside the
> source tree, but can be munged into shape fairly easily.
Peter has already done good work in making it possible to build outside
the source tree. ISTM that it would make logical sense to allow
regression tests to be run outside the source tree as well, as long as
the changes don't break the existing procedures. I have not looked at
your patches in this area --- what do they need to do, exactly?
> Being in CVS != being in the tarball(s), does it?
Yes. When this was discussed last time, I think the conclusion was that
packaging scripts should be in a different cvs module from the core
sources.
I think there are really two separate discussions going on here: one is
whether we shouldn't try harder to roll some of the RPMset diffs back
into the main sources, and the other is how we can make information
about some of the popular packages more readily visible/available to the
developers. Peter's stance on the latter seems to be "go look at the
packagers' sites", which is defensible, but that's the current approach
and I think it's not working. Leastwise I sure have no idea what's in
the packages. If I can pull down one additional CVS module from hub.org
and include that in my Postgres glimpse searches, I am actually likely
to expend that much effort, and as a result will be a lot better
informed.
> Point being that bug reports that involve changes to the core code by
> packages are happening, and confusion has resulted. A solution needs to be
> found -- and, frankly, the packages aren't going away.
Exactly.
regards, tom lane
