Re: modules

Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> [080403 09:54]:
>> I emphatically do NOT mean
>> move to pgfoundry, which is pretty much a kiss of death.
>
> But that begs the question of *why* it's a kiss of death?

> For instance, in "perl land", having something in "CPAN" and not in
> "perl core" is most certainly *not* a kiss of death? Why is it so
> different for PostgreSQL?
> Is it because the infrastructure behind CPAN is much better than that
> behind pgfoundry?

I wouldn't say one is better than the other. PGFoundry and CPAN have
totally disjoint feature sets. PgFoundry's like SoruceForge +
Bugtrackers + Discussion Forums + Surveys + Mailing Lists -- pretty
much everything except installable packages.

CPAN and RubyGems is very much focused on installable packages.

> Or is it because CPAN is better "vetted" and "organized" than pgfoundry?
>
> Or is it because the projects that go into CPAN are better quality and
> projects in pgroundry?

To simplify those two:
CPAN contains installers that mostly "just work".
PGFoundry contains mostly works-in-progress without installers.