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 small number of users or simply package an RPM of it as a > prerequisite. > > I would generally vote for the latter. We already do this for some > prerequisites for Fedora and Debian users.
I agree with Chris on this one. If DBD::Pg 2.0 offers enough benefits that it will make our code that much cleaner, I think we should offer it as a package. The only risky thing, is we might want to make it possible to have both versions of DBD::Pg on the same system, if 2.0 doesn't play nicely with older code. We don't want to force people to upgrade and then have it bust other software on them. Cheers, Chris ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ledger-smb-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ledger-smb-devel
