Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Date: 2008-07-23 14:43:00
Message-ID: 200807231743.01858.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Am Wednesday, 23. July 2008 schrieb Tom Lane:
> As soon as a Fedora release happens, I'm
> constrained by compatibility issues as to what I can put into that
> branch. RHEL releases ten times more so. I gather that Debian, for
> instance, is even more paranoid than Red Hat about upstream version
> bumps.

Debian and Ubuntu have backport repositories that users can selectively refer
to. SUSE has the openSUSE build service, which serves a similar function.
So for these platforms, the infrastructure is there, and given infinite
packaging hands (which we would need under any scheme, of course), all the
packages in all the necessary versions can be provided through the right
channels (defined as, where a user of the environment would look). So I
don't think having our own repository is a problem or even desirable for
these OS/distributions.

And for Red Hat, we have pgsqlrpms.org, which already covers what you
describe.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-07-23 14:50:03 Re: [PATCH] "\ef <function>" in psql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-07-23 14:36:44 Re: pltcl_*mod commands are broken on Solaris 10