From: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Call for 7.5 feature completion |
Date: | 2004-05-19 18:32:45 |
Message-ID: | 40ABA84D.2050302@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> People,
>
>
>>>So, why tie it into the PostgreSQL source tree? Won't it be popular
>>>enough to live on its own, that it has to be distributed as part of the
>>>core?
>
>
> Personally, I find it rather inconsistent to have any PL, other than PL/pgSQL,
> as part of the core distribution -- when we are pushing the interfaces, such
> as JDBC and libpqxx to seperate modules in pgFoundry. Either we're trying
> to lighten up the core, or we're not. But right now there seems to be no
> logic in operation.
>
> I do think, though, that we need some system to build RPMs for all the
> pgFoundry stuff ...
>
As far as this discussion is concerned I personally think that there is
just one way to satisfy everybody.
I we had a "PostgreSQL most wanted" distribution including PL/* as well
as some other modules we could save people compiling PostgreSQL from
source a lot of work.
The core itself would be cleaner (which is the target of moving things
out) and everybody would be happy?
If people think this is a good idea I could compile and maintain this
(source) distribution ...
Best regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/720/10 1234567 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-19 18:34:17 | search engine down (again) |
Previous Message | Peter Galbavy | 2004-05-19 18:21:07 | Re: Table Spaces |