On 12/02/2013 04:14 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>> What is the next step to allow an extension pulled down from pgxn to be
>> installed, unchanged, into a given database?
>
> An extension packaging system.
>
> Unchanged is not a goal, and not possible even today.
>
> PGXN is a *source based* packaging system. You can't just install what's
> in PGXN on the server's file system then CREATE EXTENSION, you have this
> extra step called the “build”.
>
> Whether you're targetting a file system template or a catalog template,
> PGXN is not a complete solution, you still need to build the extension.
So? Just "make; make install" and you're done. Or "apt-get install foo".
> What I want to build is an “extension distribution” software that knows
> how to prepare anything from PGXN (and other places) so that it's fully
> ready for being used in the database.
You mean, something to replace "make install" if it's not installed on
the server? Fair enough. You could probably write a little perl script
to parse simple Makefiles that only copy a few static files in place. Or
add a flag to the control file indicating that the extension follows a
standard layout, and doesn't need a "make" step.
I fear we're wandering off the point again. So let me repeat: It must be
possible to install the same extension the way you do today, and using
the new mechanism.
- Heikki
