RE: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
От | Peter Mount |
---|---|
Тема | RE: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478C70C536@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status
|
Список | pgsql-interfaces |
The jar file isn't built automatically in 7.0. You'll have to use: make jdbc2 jar The reason for this is partly on how make works, and partly because of the kludge we have for handling the different API versions (like JDBC1.1, JDBC2 etc) Peter -- Peter Mount Enterprise Support Maidstone Borough Council Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:27 AM To: Lamar Owen Cc: Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development; PostgreSQL-interfaces Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Request for 7.0 JDBC status > If so, I need them (Java 1 and 2) for the RPM's. I don't do Java -- and > the RPM's have historically packaged the .jar files as pulled verbatim > from retep.org.uk. I haven't distributed RC2 RPM's yet for partially > that reason "I don't do Java" can change fairly easily; just pick up the java tarball from blackdown.org or sun.com, untar it into /usr/local, then set your path via set path=(/usr/local/jdk-xxx $path) Go into src/interfaces/jdbc and type make jdbc2 then grab the jar file(s). otoh, how close are you Peter (hope you see this; I've blown away enough email to have lost your address) to posting a built jar file or whatever is usually provided? Should we post this somewhere on postgresql.org to help out? Should I post my recently built stuff? > NOTE: > I have gotten good response and patches to the RPM's from a number of > people this go around -- and it is ENCOURAGING! Great! - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
В списке pgsql-interfaces по дате отправления: