On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> For the first category, an inclusion could be possible if the software
> has a potential to reach more users and can make the offering more
> complete in some respect. If that's not the case, it should be included.
> Most software that "sucks royally" will be filtered out in the first 4 steps.
> If it is not, and if a lot of people vote to get it in, well then it does not
> suck so bad after all, at least not according to the voters. So it's in
> provided nothing better exists already. It can still be replaced of course,
> should something better come along.
Sounds reasonable, and such policy could/would be fine tuned over time as
>> Behind what? A list on pgFoundry of recommended software? Sure ...
>> integrating that list into the physical postgresql.tar.gz file that is the
>> core server distribution? No ...
> The core server distribution is left untouched by all this.
Ah, then you've got me on side :)
> It would be really nice if this project could publish packages using
> your BitTorrent and ftp mirrors though.
Actually, pgfoundry can be found on
I think BitTorrent might be a bit difficult though, since it isn't
auto-updated ... or is it? David?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Oliver Elphick||Date: 2004-08-25 16:57:35|
|Subject: Re: copy a database|
|Previous:||From: DeJuan Jackson||Date: 2004-08-25 16:46:05|
|Subject: The Slony General List|