| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: Extension Packaging & Lookup |
| Date: | 2024-10-29 18:11:09 |
| Message-ID: | BCFCF626-4A23-4260-8489-CC0498652271@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 29, 2024, at 14:03, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> wrote:
> At that point you’re better off distributing the extension via the packaging system, where you know that all the dependency versions line up correctly.
Yeah. Perhaps it could be mitigated to some degree by requiring a minimum version of each dependency in the binary distribution. But that could get a bit tricky/fussy. This is why, I think, people recommend sticking to the system packaging system exclusively.
At any rate, all of this is somewhat tangential to the directory structure/search path functionality at the heart of this proposal. Independent of how things are compiled and packaged, the lookup structure should be reasonable. Perhaps we can keep brainstorming about the DSO dependency issues in another thread or on Slack or something. What do you think?
Cause I’m DOWN to keep working on it, but don’t want to obfuscate the main reason for THIS thread.
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-10-29 18:12:49 | Re: RFC: Extension Packaging & Lookup |
| Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2024-10-29 18:09:46 | Re: RFC: Extension Packaging & Lookup |