Re: Proposal to shutdown pgFoundry

On May 20, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> 2011/5/20 Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>:
>> 2011/5/20 Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>>>
>>> On May 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2011/5/20 Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 20, 2011, at 1:09 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 15:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we'd want to try to avoid doing that as it would require
>>>>>>> policing to ensure inappropriate content wasn't uploaded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I quoted wrong email in my previous reply, sorry)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already allow *everyone* to distribute their tarballs through our FTP
>>>>>> mirror network...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why won't we direct them to PGXN? It seems to have a really nice way to store/discover PostgreSQL related projects.
>>>>
>>>> That might be appropriate for some packages, but certainly not all.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering what are these 'inappropriate' packages. Any examples?
>>
>> The OLEDB driver. pgInstaller. StackBuilder all spring to mind.
>
> In fact, if you look at the toplist on the frontpage of the pgfoundry
> site, I think most of those are not the kind of stuff that belongs on
> pgxn...

Well, I don't see any reasons blocking you from putting stuff like oledb provider or npgsql into PGXN. It's not just for extensions built via PGXS, but for almost any kind of postgres extensions. The pgInstaller or Stackbuilder are probably not appropriate for PGXN, but there are not so many postgres installers out there.

--
Alexey Klyukin
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.