Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I understand your point Tom. However as I said in a earlier
> post, just because it is in core doesn't mean they have to
> package it.

If it were in our CVS, but still shipped as an separate, independently-built
source package, then my objection would not apply. However such a setup
seems to lose a lot of the synergy that is being claimed for having it
in our CVS. plPHP would then still have its own separate configure and
build process, and it wouldn't get tested "for free" in the same kind of
way that the current core PLs do.

Or were you trying to say "let's ship it, and I don't care if major
Linux distributors refuse to include it in their packaging because it's
too hard to build that way"? Somehow that doesn't seem to square with
the goal of making plPHP more available rather than less so.

regards, tom lane