Tom Lane wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I agree with reverting. The tool looks pretty broken anyway, with hardcoded paths and all sorts of stuff quite apart from logic problems.

Well, it's only intended to work on Bruce's system, so until someone
else takes over the position of chief gruntwork-doer I don't think the
portability issues are much of a factor.

Shouldn't the README reflect that, then?



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to