Thread: Spoke too soon (was RE: cvs committers digest)
Lamar Owen wrote, in a misguided moment: (:-/) > I also track the current CVS -- but for a totally different reason, as I > want to be able to release RPMs of the beta release the same day as the > beta release -- thus, I am doing trial builds of RPM's against the CVS. > However, this current issue doesn't impact me in the slightest -- which > is why I have not and will not say anything about it. I am now saying something about it. While I have been doing trial builds of the current sources, I have not been building all the clients up until today, for speed in building. And guess what -- the lack of pqbool breaks the perl5 client. Badly. Won't-even-compile-badly. Is this breakage going to be fixed by the 15th? If not, what can I do to workaround it until it is fixed properly (either by putting pqbool back in libpq-fe.h, or by fixing Pg.xs to not need pqbool). I _would_ like to have RPM's ready of the beta on the release day.... TIA -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> And guess what -- the lack of
> pqbool breaks the perl5 client. Badly. Won't-even-compile-badly.
Yeah, that was pointed out already. I am of the opinion that both
that change and removal of the "obsolete" print functions should be
reverted, but I haven't done so --- I was sort of expecting Peter
to take care of it.
> Is this breakage going to be fixed by the 15th?
Someone will do something about it ;-)
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > And guess what -- the lack of > > pqbool breaks the perl5 client. Badly. Won't-even-compile-badly. > Yeah, that was pointed out already. IIRC, it was Hiroshi. I remembered the post, went to the archives, and pulled it up to double-check. So, I thought I'd just put out a feeler to see how I needed to allocate my time -- if it's fixed soon, I'll just put the 7.0 RPM's on my back burner today, and wait on the fix -- otherwise, I'm going to go back to building without the perl client for now for my testing, as I have several other issues to deal with. > I am of the opinion that both > that change and removal of the "obsolete" print functions should be > reverted, but I haven't done so --- I was sort of expecting Peter > to take care of it. Well, after following the thread down a ways, I saw his reply to Hiroshi stating to the effect that he was going to take off for a bit, but that he'd be back. Probably needed a breather. > > Is this breakage going to be fixed by the 15th? > Someone will do something about it ;-) I have a poem about Someone, Everyone, and Anyone.... Thanks, Tom. If I need to just apply a patch for build purposes, that's fine. I'm just trying to get my build-act together, as 7.0 is quite different from a packaging standpoint than 6.5.x, at least from 'my' packaging standpoint. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11