Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane) wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> My personal opinion is that contrib should be removed entirely.
>
> That's not real workable for code that is tightly tied to the backend,
> such as the various GIST index extensions presently in contrib. It's
> just easier to maintain that code when it's in with the backend.
>
> However the replication modules don't seem to have such a linkage,
> so I have no objection to moving them out.

I'll point out one "fly in ointment" that has been noticed; on AIX,
there are compilation tools that are difficult to live without, namely
"mkldexport.sh", that lives pretty deep in the source tree.

Maybe the answer is to "replicate" ;-) that into the code base for
code that uses it. Alternatively, perhaps there needs to be a
"make-all-build-tools" target in the main makefile.

A challenge seems to be to have this play well with Linux and BSD
"package" systems; building packages that can automatically go to
sources (ala Ports or Source RPMs or auto-built .debs) for "contrib"
software is sure to be somewhat painful; doing the same for outside
code that also requires a PG source build is painful to think about.
--
"cbbrowne","@","ntlug.org"
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/finances.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #209. "I will not, under any circumstances,
marry a woman I know to be a faithless, conniving, back-stabbing witch
simply because I am absolutely desperate to perpetuate my family
line. Of course, we can still date." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>