On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 06:08:27AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote: > Last time we looked, psycopg didn't have any tests at all, which is why > we choose pyPgSQL instead. Do tell !?!
> I suspect that the baby is in danger of being thrown out with the > bathwater. There ain't no danger yet :-) It's not like we are going to actually *do* anything today or tomorrow ... > The problem with pyPgSQL is that the developers aren't very > responsive to emails and seem reluctant to include patches they didn't > write, and they have not rolled up a tarball or made a Windows binary > installer for nearly two years (eg there is no Windows installer for > pyPgSQL for Python 2.4 available). However, the code is being maintained > in CVS - there are commits quite regularly. I see. Good to know. > So its really just a matter of taking the code from CVS and creating > your own tarball and/or binary installer. That's what we plan to do for > NetEpi in the next two months. Let's "pool resources" in this case. Maybe I am dumb but it sounds more manageable than rolling our own entirely. Karsten -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
