| From: | Marko Karppinen <marko(at)karppinen(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: About the partial tarballs |
| Date: | 2003-11-11 22:30:13 |
| Message-ID: | 9E1496FE-1496-11D8-8B0E-000A95A6A60A@karppinen.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 Nov 2003, at 20:44, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Do we have any data on how many people download the partial tarballs
> (-base, -opt, etc.)? I have a feeling that more people are confused by
> them than use them.
Even if they weren't useful for anything else, I think there's value in
the
developers having to consider what is optional and what is not. This
need
for constant review probably reduces the chance of bloat, over time even
in the full tarball.
I agree that the partial tarballs can confuse an ftp user, though. I
think
a good solution to this would be to put them one level deeper, into a
subfolder. The full tarball would then be the only thing a casual
user would encounter, but the source-based port systems could still
benefit from the partial tarballs.
mk
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-11 22:48:37 | Re: About the partial tarballs |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-11-11 22:01:06 | Re: Proposal for a cascaded master-slave replication system |