Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network

From: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network
Date: 2010-01-08 17:35:23
Message-ID: 407d949e1001080935x40c22662o263d75c57602299f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:13 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
> Please let the Windows thread die now. PGAN doesn't ignore Windows; it ignores installer development.
>

yeah, I think there are two quite separable projects here. It's quite
possible that once the binary installer people have a source package
with all the meta data and computer-readable build instructions that
PGAN will need that they'll be able to implement support for binary
pre-built modules as well. But just tackling the source package
problem solves a lot of the problems already.

The binary installer people will have their own set of problems to
solve as well, they'll have to deal with environment dependencies such
as OS versions, external binary versions, privileges, etc. These are
all additional problems on top of having a source package already.

To make an analogy configure and make are still useful even after you
have dpkg -- you still need to be able to build the individual source
package first before you get to put it into a binary package.

--
greg

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-08 17:37:11 Re: Setting oom_adj on linux?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-01-08 17:34:29 Re: Setting oom_adj on linux?