Re: How other package pgjdbc

On 26 January 2016 at 02:13, Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 of January 2016 03:34:00 Vitalii Tymchyshyn wrote:
> > Well, first of all you dont need to package osgi classes. Those are the
> > apis and as soon as you run in the osgi container, they are provided by
> > container. But you need those to build the driver. And af far as I
> > understand, there are certain licensing problems to do this, ain't they?
> I
> > dont think it's pure packaging problem, e.g. see
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-July/001930.html.
>
> Thanks, I was not aware of that. This makes clear why people probably
> want OSGi enterprise, but it can not live in open source distribution.
>
> I'm not sure, is it safe to depend on it in upstream?
>

The only reason it is bad is that it forbids modification which if you
think about it's purpose makes sense.

It is attempting to provide an agreed upon way to include services into an
enterprise. If everyone modified it how would it work

I don't see the difference between this and JDBC for instance

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com

>
>