On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * I think we're going to need a formal version string spec for extensions.
>
>> I agree.
>
> I don't.  We deliberately decided *not* to have any wired-in
> interpretation of extension numbers, and I don't think that decision
> needs to be reversed.  David can choose to enforce something for stuff
> distributed through PGXN if he wishes, but that's no concern of the core
> server's.  In particular I'm really skeptical of the theory that we need
> or should want version restrictions in Requires references.  The
> equivalent feature in RPM is deprecated for Fedora/RedHat packaging use,
> and I see no reason why we'd need it more than they do.

Oh, really?  How can you possibly get by without it?  Dependencies of
this type are all over the place.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Extensions Dependency Checking at 2011-04-04 21:48:34 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Extensions Dependency Checking at 2011-04-04 22:23:20 from Aidan Van Dyk
• Re: Extensions Dependency Checking at 2011-04-04 22:43:00 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: David E. Wheeler	Date: 2011-04-04 22:12:59
	Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2011-04-04 21:48:34
	Subject: Re: Extensions Dependency Checking