<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
 http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
Is there any reason why we aren't naming this as closed to upstream as
possible? <br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<a href="http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux">http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/">http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/
</a><br>
<br>
BTW What's the difference between upstream packages and the packages we
build as in why does upstream feel compelled to provide it's own
packages and repo?<br>
<br>
JBG<br>
</body>
</html>