| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: deprecating contrib for PGXN |
| Date: | 2011-05-18 19:36:04 |
| Message-ID: | 143BC8B8-69FB-458C-94C0-3F93331DDC16@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 18, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
>> Yes. But if they're that decoupled, then they ought to be in separate
>> distributions.
>
> I somehow fail to picture how you map distributions with debian
> packages. The simple way is to have a distribution be a single source
> package that will produce as many binary packages as it contains
> extensions.
How do CPAN modules get packaged? Example:
http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/all/libsvn-notify-perl/filelist
> Now, if a single extension appears in more than one distribution, as far
> as debian packaging is concerned, you're hosed.
Yeah. That might happen, but should be uncommon.
> So I still think we need to manually package for debian…
Well, maybe packages could be auto-generated but vetted by a human?
Just a thought.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2011-05-18 19:37:32 | Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default? |
| Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2011-05-18 19:29:08 | Re: Why not install pgstattuple by default? |