Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 17:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:48:50PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> > If by "stripped down" you mean without postgresql database support then
> > I'll grant you that, but it is no different than other any other pl
> > whose parent language requires postgresql to be installed. If packagers
> > are able to handle those languages than why can't they do the same with
> > PHP ?
>
> Because those other languages are well designed and PHP is not. The
> Postgres support package for Perl is a completely separate add-on, which
> you can add well after the core of Perl is installed. Same for Python.
> But PHP is a braindead package which includes the Postgres support in
> the main codebase.
>
> The problem is that even if you could build a Postgres support package
> for PHP without building the whole PHP (which you _can_ do AFAIK), it
> means that you need to make a second pass at the PHP source RPM, which
> will be probably rejected by packagers.
>

ISTM this is a problem with the packaging as much as it is with PHP, but
in neither case is this a problem for PostgreSQL. ISTM decisions as to
what is included in PostgreSQL core should not be based on the design
decisions of one vendors packaging scheme IMHO.

>
> I think the problem could be solved if we were to include PHP in the
> main CVS, but not distribute it in the same tarball. So the code is
> kept where it really belongs, and we allow building both things
> separately for the packagers' sake.
>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
> "If it wasn't for my companion, I believe I'd be having
> the time of my life" (John Dunbar)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL