Re: [HACKERS] Perl library (was Building Postgres) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Perl library (was Building Postgres)
Date
Msg-id 20693.930691925@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Perl library (was Building Postgres)  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> Wouldn't it be better to create a CPAN package and distribute it from
>> *there*?

> Would a CPAN package be more amenable to an rpm packaging? That is, if
> we had a CPAN distribution (generated locally, of course), could I
> plop that into an rpm and have a standard, easy procedure to follow
> within the rpm to get the stuff extracted and installed onto a
> machine?? I'm blissfully ignorant about CPAN and the packaging
> conventions, but would like suggestions.

I believe that what you find in the interfaces/perl5 subdirectory
*is* a CPAN package.  Tarred and gzipped, that fileset could be
submitted to CPAN (or it could be if it was self-contained, rather than
dependent on libpq, that is).  "perl Makefile.PL; make; make install"
is precisely what Perl users expect to have to do with a CPAN package.

I'm not sure if it's worth trying to come up with a self-contained
CPAN package or not --- we could probably make one, using libpq sources
and the necessary backend include files, but would it really be worth
much to anyone who didn't also have a Postgres server?  Seems like you
need the full distribution anyway, in most situations.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jackson, DeJuan"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] changing major/minor on libpq for releases ...
Next
From: Mikhail Terekhov
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] User requests now that 6.5 is out