Re: question about the admin contrib module and binary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 22 March 2006 22:02
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tony Caduto; Devrim GUNDUZ; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] question about the admin contrib
> module and binary
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Yeah - wxWidgets, GTK etc. but none are required by the
> admin module,
> > only by pgAdmin itself on the users workstation.
>
> Oh, so what we're talking about is some server-side support functions
> for the pgAdmin client? OK, that's not what I was envisioning. From
> a dependency standpoint it might be OK to package that as a contrib
> module. I would say the main point for or against is whether you are
> ready to tie the releases of the support functions to releases of the
> core server. If they should naturally go with pgAdmin releases then
> it'd be sticky to have them in contrib.

They're primarily tied to the PostgreSQL version, however, what I see as
the bigger problem is that 99% of what is in there has been rejected for
inclusion in the core server because (mainly) you wanted to find better
ways of achieving what we were doing - think pg_file_write(). However,
if you're happy to have them in /contrib that might well make life
easier until we come up with acceptable alternatives for core (as it
happens I submitted a discussion proposal for the conference precisely
to hash out the remote config management stuff).

> There's also a licensing issue which is that pgAdmin is GPL, while
> we're trying to make sure that all contrib modules are licensed
> the same as the core server.

Yeuch, not GPL - Artistic. But that shouldn't cause any problems - there
are only 3 ppl who have ever worked on it and I wouldn't see a licence
change being a issue.

Regards, Dave.