From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robin Ericsson <robin(dot)ericsson(at)profecta(dot)se> |
Cc: | "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core? |
Date: | 2005-04-05 15:05:34 |
Message-ID: | 13520.1112713534@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Robin Ericsson <robin(dot)ericsson(at)profecta(dot)se> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> I suppose the choice comes down to either PHP splitting the DB access
>> (like other languages) or PostgreSQL splitting out pl/PHP.
> Most major distributions (Fedora Core, Debian, Redhat) splits core php
> and database-access in different packages. Might be that sqlite is core,
> that newer php that have that change also bundles libsqlite.
Look, folks, one more time: this has zero to do with how the installable
packages are divided up. The problem has to do with how the *source*
packages are divided up, and the rule is you want to build the source
packages in a particular sequence without any circular dependencies.
How many RPMs/DEBs/whatevers come out of a particular source package
really doesn't affect this.
The proposal on the table is to bundle plPHP into the Postgres source
package, and the problem is that that introduces a circular dependency
at build time because PHP already made a similar bundling. That was a
bad move on their part and we shouldn't compound the problem by making
a similar error.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 15:07:38 | Re: installation AIX - LINUX |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-04-05 14:49:40 | Re: [Fwd: [webmaster] in Search of free hosting with |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-05 15:15:00 | Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core? |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2005-04-05 14:41:05 | Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core? |