-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Le 12 août 08 à 18:41, Bruce Momjian a écrit :
>> Are you proposing that we should introduce our own packaging system
>> for
>> such add-on components? Like CP(g)AN (which has been proposed
>> before..)?
>
> Yes, pretty much. I imagine some kind of web interface or Java app
> (did
> I just say that?) that lists all plugins and when you choose one it
> downloads an object file appropriate for your operating system plus
> SQL
> scripts and somehow automatically installs them in the desired
> database.
>
> That is the kind of capability we need to really advance things. We
> would still allow source installs but for people wanting to try things
> out, I see no other alternative, and "try things out" == adoption.
What is wrong with my proposal here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg01098.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-07/msg01116.php
I tried to address binary distribution, PostgreSQL stamped packages,
distributions packaging compliance (deb and rpm and etc), and ease of
use at user level (a package embeds .so file(s) with any SQL you need).
The proposal mention SQL level interface (create/drop/install package)
and command-line tools to fetch from internet, build with pgxs and
install the prepared package into the given database. The binary
distribution is left to people in charge in my proposal, they are
debian packagers, RPM ones like Devrim, or Win32 Installer team.
Please tell me how far from a workable proposal I am...
Regards,
- --
dim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkinRGoACgkQlBXRlnbh1bkTOgCfT7xerFH6i5Q2g35djcYoYGLI
7bMAn2/WqGyzVwf/8KAacpo9QCuYxv+G
=lZqK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
