On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Barry Lind writes:
>
> > Where pgsql, server, jdbc, odbc would each then be a module that could
> > be checkedout via cvs. So if you wanted everything you would just pull
> > >from pgsql (cvs checkout pgsql), or you could just pull jdbc (cvs
> > checkout jdbc).
> >
> > I haven't thought about how configure would work in this environment,
> > but I would think that there would be a top level configure at the pgsql
> > level that would have options like --with-java, --with-server, etc,
> > while each individual component would have it's own configure??? not
> > sure here.
>
> There are a number of ways to make this work. The Cygnus (a.k.a. GCC)
> tree and the KDE project are examples. You have a number of related
> projects in sibling directories. Each project uses a GNU-style
> configure/make process. At the top of that tree you have a master
> configure script or makefile, either hand-crafted (Cygnus) or
> automatically generated (KDE). The user runs the top configure with the
> options he'd like (e.g., --with-pgport=6543 --enable-locale) and the
> top-level configure runs each present lower configure in turn with those
> options. There's also a top-level makefile that invokes all the
> lower-level ones.
>
> This gives you a certain degree of flexibility and simplification. Each
> configure script only has to deal with a subset of the problem space
> (e.g., Java, Perl). People only have to check out the stuff they want.
> You can bundle distributions in different ways.
>
> Note, however, that in spite of this, there's still only one release of
> GCC (even though some language front-ends move faster than others at
> times) and there's only one release of KDE.
If we could implement something like this, where I could download *just*
libpq to a box, or *just* jdbc to a box, and build it without all of the
"extras", then I'll most happily shut up :) That is my only *major* beef
with the way we are doing it now, it doesn't *parcel* well at the source
level ...
