| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: modules |
| Date: | 2008-04-04 13:35:15 |
| Message-ID: | 47F62E93.70002@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> This changes the game slightly from trying to get systems to come with
> PostreSQL "modules" installed into PostgreSQL by default, to where
> systems come with PostgreSQL "module" *packages* (rpms, debs, pkg, etc)
> installed by default, and the DB owners can do the "PostgreSQL install"
> part themselves.
>
> Would this slight change of the game be of any value?
>
>
>
No. "packages" has another meaning in the database context.
I am going to point out AGAIN that we have already had a debate about
this subject, not that long ago, including the name by which we should
call these things. The consensus name then was "modules" and I think
that was right.
Those who do take cognizance of previous debates are doomed to repeat them.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-04-04 13:49:40 | Re: modules |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-04-04 13:15:31 | Re: modules |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-04-04 13:49:40 | Re: modules |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2008-04-04 13:15:31 | Re: modules |