Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

On Tuesday 03 May 2005 13:46, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> >Is telling the rpm maintainers to go fix their rpm's an option? As has
> >been hashed out before, the only thing that makes plphp different from
> >other pl's is that some of the current packagers are taking shortcuts
> >with the packaging scripts which introduces dependency issues. IMHO what
> >is included in the postgresql cvs and what is included in the main
> >tarball for postgresql should not be dictated by outside packagers.
>
> That wasn't my understanding of the previous discussion. Does not php
> require pg client support configured in at build time?
>

If your compiling it from source, it works similarly to perl... you only need
pg when compiling pg support into php, but you dont need tthis in for plphp.

The problem stems from things like the php rpm spec, which has a module
dependency on postgresql. This would create a circular dependency if we were
to put a dependency into the pg rpm spec for plphp.

I think the solution to this is to create a seperate rpm spec for php-pgsql
support, which would fall in line with how the php rpm packages are
distributed, but I'm not an expert in rpm specs...

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL