> Supported by *whom* exactly? It won't be the core committee; we have
> more than enough to do managing the server itself.
I don't doubt that for a second. What I'm suggesting must be staffed
somehow. The core committee must be involved though or the whole idea
falls apart. You *are* PostgreSQL (at least to me).
> Whoever is actually doing this "verifying" and "supporting" can take
> on the work of producing the "supported configuration" package too;
> IMHO it would really be pretty meaningless to do otherwise.
> I think the place where this most naturally falls is with the commercial
> Linux distributors (Red Hat, Suse, etc). They're already in the
> business of assembling disparate upstream sources and making sure those
> bits play nicely together.
Here I don't agree. It's very important that the packaging is made by
PostgreSQL. I'm not contributing PL/Java for the benefit of Red Hat or
Suse. I'm doing it because I want to improve the database. Also, when a
Solaris or Windows customer wants a database solution, it's higly
unlikely that they'd consult a commercial Linux distributor.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Browne||Date: 2004-08-22 19:05:57|
|Subject: Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions on postgresql|
|Previous:||From: Thomas Hallgren||Date: 2004-08-22 17:52:10|
|Subject: Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions|