Re: [HACKERS] pgaccess seems a tad confused]

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > I ran across the depopulated pgaccess tree this morning while starting the
> > build cycle for the 6.5.2 rpms -- good thing I have already dealt with that
> > issue with previous packages.  For the RPM's, it has been practice for some time
> > to include the very latest pgaccess as a separate tarball, then untarring it
> > over top of the one in the main tarball during the package build.  I was hoping
> > to get away from that. ;-(
> 
> Yes, I have created a bad situation.  pgaccess it very important for pgsql.

I wouldn't have even noticed had I not remembered that pgaccess-0.98 was one of
the enhancements in 6.5.2.  I was looking to rid the RPM's of the extra tarball
of pgaccess.  Had I not noticed, I would have blissfully kept the pgaccess-0.98
tarball in the RPM, and not gone rabbit-hunting.  As it stands, the
pgacess-0.98 tarball is kept in the 6.5.2 RPM, just not blissfully. ;-)

Don't punish yourself too hard -- an honest (if avoidable) mistake.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11