Re: RPM: Contrib request.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2001-01-26T04:51:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >> But, in the instance of pg_dumplo -- can I get some ideas on it? Should >> it be shipped as a separate package, or in the -server subpackage, or?? > It shouldn't be packaged at all because it's not necessary. (pg_dump > dumps large objects.) The reason pg_dumplo is still there at all is that it might be handy for forward compatibility for people who are using pg_dumplo with 7.0. (Yeah, I know it wasn't *in* the 7.0 release, but I've been sending out 7.0-compatible copies to anyone who asked about LO dumping lately.) I don't think pg_dumplo will be around for very many releases, but it deserves to stay in contrib for a little while yet. Meanwhile, it's not the RPMs' place to editorialize on which contrib items are useful. Package 'em all, unless we hit build problems. regards, tom lane