| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: moving from contrib to bin |
| Date: | 2014-12-12 15:27:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20141212152723.GO31413@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-12-12 10:20:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On 12/12/14 8:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Wouldn't a make install-server/client targets or something similar
> >> actually achieve the same thing? Seems simpler to maintain to me.
>
> > Adding non-standard makefile targets comes with its own set of
> > maintenance issues.
>
> It would be of zero value to packagers anyway; certainly so for those
> following the Red Hat tradition, in which you tell the package Makefile
> to install everything and then what goes into which subpackage is
> sorted out in a separate, subsequent step. Possibly Debian or other
> packaging infrastructures do it differently, but I doubt that.
Debian has that step as well - you don't really have to use it, but the
postgres debian packages do so. They already don't adhere to the current
distinction.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Shulgin | 2014-12-12 15:34:34 | Re: Turning recovery.conf into GUCs |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-12-12 15:21:43 | Re: Commitfest problems |