From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Extensions Dependency Checking |
Date: | 2011-04-04 22:06:57 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTin5m6gt7ibZA8BrB5=H1keJuOQ49g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-04-04 22:12:59 | Re: Extensions Dependency Checking |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-04 21:48:34 | Re: Extensions Dependency Checking |