Re: Core Extensions relocation

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Why do you figure that, exactly? The path of least resistance will
> be precisely to leave everything packaged as it is, in a single
> postgresql-contrib module. I'm pretty likely to do that myself for
> Fedora and RHEL. Subdividing/rearranging contrib makes the packager's
> life more complicated, *and* makes his users' lives more complicated,
> if only because things aren't where they were before. It seems unlikely
> to happen, at least in the near term.

Then if we want packagers to move, what about removing all the
extensions not listed by Greg from the contrib/ directory and inventing
another place where to manage them, which is not automatically built,
but still part of buildfarm tests, if at all possible.

Then the only change we suggest to packagers is to have the main
PostgreSQL package install the contrib one by means of dependencies.

I don't much like this solution, but that's how I read your email. The
status quo is not a good place to live in.

> The upstream project can't force these decisions on packagers, and it
> doesn't help to go about under the illusion that we can.

Really? You are packaging for RHEL, Dave is responsible for the windows
packaging, Devrim is covering the other RPM systems (apart from SuSE
maybe and I'm not even sure) and Martin is caring for debian and ubuntu
and following along. We're missing BSD ports packagers, and we're
covering like 90% or more of the servers and developers installs.

We can't force everybody hands to doing it our way, but I'm pretty sure
we can talk to them and see what they think about the usefulness of this
proposal and how they intend to react. We're not *that* disconnected.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support