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

Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:12:16 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Spoke too soon (was RE: cvs committers digest)
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

Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:26:06 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Spoke too soon (was RE: cvs committers digest) 
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

Sat, 05 Feb 2000 17:39:32 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: [HACKERS] Spoke too soon (was RE: cvs committers digest)