Re: Search machine is ready
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Search machine is ready |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E40103E1C4@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Search machine is ready ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Search machine is ready
|
Список | pgsql-www |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter_e@gmx.net] > Sent: 17 February 2006 14:54 > To: pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Cc: Dave Page > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Search machine is ready > > Am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2006 17:40 schrieb Dave Page: > > - Vendor changes. I don't like to run packages I know to > have been changed > > by the vendor - for example, it was noted the other day > that the Debian > > PostgreSQL packages contains patches that aren't in PGDG > releases. In this > > case the only OS vendor I would trust with a modified > PostgreSQL is Red > > Hat, for fairly obvious reasons. > > Clearly, you have never looked into the Debian packages. > Otherwise you would > have seen that the patches are completely trivial and not > related to changing > any functionality. No I haven't, nor do I have any desire to. Aside from the fact that I was using that only as an example, seeing comments like: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00281.php and http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-02/msg00310.php is enough to put anyone off (or probably should be). As it happens the one I was thinking of was a patch to the Kerberos auth code, which even Tom was unsure of for at least a while from what I recall. If he is unsure about such a 'trivial' patch, then the vast majority of the rest of us probably should be as well. I shall stick to building my own packages for all distros thank you. Regards, Dave.
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: