Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

Robert Treat wrote:

>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.
>
>

I suspect you are missing the point completely.

It is in fact not like building perl at all. I just downloaded
php-4.3.11 and got this from configure --help:

--with-pgsql[=DIR] Include PostgreSQL support. DIR is the PostgreSQL
base install directory, defaults to
/usr/local/pgsql.

You will not find any such parameter for building perl.

Now it is true that you don't need this in for plphp. But if you want
php to have pg client support you need pg built first. And no sane
packager is going to build php twice.

I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that php is moving to get rid of
this compile-time dependency - but it's not gone yet, to the best of my
knowledge.

cheers

andrew