On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: > Dave Page wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Craig Ringer >> <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> wrote: >> >>> Why _not_ distribute gettext headers, though? Sources I can understand >>> for size reasons, but the headers are small and fuss free, and you need >>> the _right_ _versions_ to build against the Pg backend. >> >> No reason, other than I didn't realise they were needed to build extension. >> > > Ah, fair enough. I read: > >> We do include the library. We don't include the headers or source for >> third party code though - that would be considered part of the build >> environment, just the same as the Windows SDK. > > as "we don't want to distribute third-party headers even if required by > Pg's own headers" and thus thought you *did* know but by policy didn't > want to distribute them.
I didn't know in this case, but was making a general statement about how I felt the policy should be. Plus I was feeling a little grumpy in my pre-coffee state. Sorry :-p -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com PG East Conference: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
