Re: Proposed change for database installation

[Chris Travers <..hidden..>]

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Adam Thompson <..hidden..> wrote:
> On 2010-Mar-01 18:13, Chris Travers wrote:
>>> I was actually thinking that the existence of LSMB_NEW_DB would be
>>> sufficient.  If it's not set and PGDATABASE is set instead, the database
>>> will not get created.  If PGDATABASE is set, (IIRC) 43-dbtest.t still runs.
>>
>> Ok.  But that's what we do now :-)
>
> Yes.  I just meant that between 40-dbsetup.t (& 43-dbtest.t) and
> 63-lwp.t, we have LSMB_NEW_DB and LSMB_NEW_DATABASE, which seems redundant.
>

Ok.  Great.  Will fix.

Best Wishes.,
Chris Travers