On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>> Yeah. Although the project policy is that we don't require Perl to
>>> build on Unix, there was a bug in the makefiles that made it effectively
>>> required, and nobody noticed for several years. I don't think it would
>>> be a hard sell to change that policy if we got a significant benefit out
>>> of it. (Depending on non-core Perl modules is a totally different thing
>>> though.)
>
>> Well, this is a pretty fortunate turn of events. I had two paragraphs
>> in my original email that I edited out ("... so I'm not going to say
>> more") on how to workaround the lack of Perl. If we're all OK now on
>> requiring some basic Perl installation then all the better. I certainly
>> have no trouble with it.
>
> Although actually, we could still keep that policy if Perl is needed to
> build .bki files --- we just have to build those files in distprep and
> ship them as part of tarballs. It's already the case that you need Perl
> to build from a CVS pull, it's only tarball users who don't need it.
I just said the same thing a few hours ago...
...Robert
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
