On 8/14/2004 12:34 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> While you have a valid point from the perspective of the community, I
> think there is an issue which is legitimate here. That is that people
> see the fact that Slony does not come with the PostgreSQL tarball. From
> this perspective "we" do not have a "replication" solution. Like it or
> not, this is a viewpoint many evaluators have. To them, this is still a
> third-party add-on, even though it was developed primarily by core
> members of the PostgreSQL community.
As said before, if the sourcecode organization (splitting off interfaces
and other non-server-side tools) has such impact, then it is a bad idea.
Most users will not download the source tarball. Most users will install
some sort of package collection provided by their system distribution.
That was one of the fundamental arguments that people used when we where
discussing skimming of the PostgreSQL tarball. Following your logic
would mean we better state in the 8.0 announcement the *removal of all
language interface other than C*. Because that is what happened. If you
download the tarball, there is no Perl, Java, C++ or Tcl library. They
don't come with the PostgreSQL tarball, therefore from your perspective
"we" do not have "any language support other than C".
Now fortunately, this spartanic tarball isn't what most users will get
if they select PostgreSQL in their OS distribution installer. So the
question would rather be *what is our recommendation for package
maintainers?* That collection is what hopefully most end users will
experience as the PostgreSQL database product, and that is the picture
we have to draw in our release announcement.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #