On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 21:19, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/06/2011 03:14 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Greg Smith<greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting "paper cuts" quite a bit these days over the differences
>>>> between what different packaging systems decide to install. The one
>>>> *I* get notably bit on, of late, is that I have written code that
>>>> expects to have pg_config to do some degree of self-discovery, only to
>>>> find production folk complaining that they only have "psql" available
>>>> in their environment.
>>>
>>> Given the other improvements in being able to build extensions in 9.1, we
>>> really should push packagers to move pg_config from the PostgreSQL
>>> development package into the main one starting in that version. I've
>>> gotten
>>> bit by this plenty of times.
>>
>> I'm agreeable to that, in general.
>>
>> If there's a "server" package and a "client" package, it likely only
>> fits with the "server" package. On a host where only the "client" is
>> installed, they won't be able to install extensions, so it's pretty
>> futile to have it there.
>
> I don't agree. It can be useful even there, to see how the libraries are
> configured, for example. I'd be inclined to bundle it with postgresql-libs
> or the moral equivalent.
+1.
And it's not like it wastes huge amount of space...
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
