On Wednesday 16 January 2008 01:16:34 pm Chris Travers wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 10:17 AM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We need to be careful there. RHEL 5 will never have it for example.
>
> And at that point we will have to decide whether to maintain duplicate code
> for a very s
We could always put a package which locally installs DBD::Pg into the
LedgerSMB application directory. That should limit collateral damage to
other applications.
The big issue with DBD::Pg compatibility is likely to be the autoparsing of
PostgreSQL arrays. Otherwise, it is unlikely to have any c
On Jan 16, 2008 10:17 AM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:51:27 -0800
> "Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 2008 10:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:51:27 -0800
"Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2008 10:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:31:50 -0800
On Jan 15, 2008 10:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:31:50 -0800
> "Chris Travers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I would like to suggest that *some* but not all testers work with
> > DBD::Pg 2.0.0 while
