On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 09:07:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > Of course my humble but thoroughly biased opinion is that libpq++ be
> > marked "legacy."
>
> No doubt, but, if we didn't "push" one interface over another, then it
> would be up to the end-users themselves to decide which o
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, jtv wrote:
> Looking at it that way, it seems to me that the proper approach is to
> cut out all interfaces that don't talk to the backend themselves--e.g.
> the ones that build on top of libpq, like libpq++ and libpqxx do.
This is what my opinion is ... what I'm setting up r
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> Who cares? Those that need a C++ interface will know where to find it,
> and will report bugs that they have ... why should it be tested on every
> platform when we *might* only have those on the Linux platform using it?
Wel
> Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while
> this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx...
>
> The problem I have with removing libpqxx is that libpq++ is a far
> inferior C++ interface. If we leave libpq++ as the only C++ interface
> distributed with
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Actually, the comparison is apt. There's a reason people suggest
> using your distribution's PHP or Zope or what-have-you packages,
> rather than installing from source: an inexperienced user with these
> packages could easily spend several days trying to figure out all t
> How many thousands of web sites out there don't offer PgSQL due to teh
> hassle? Everyone is arguing 'why mysql vs pgsql?' ... if we had a simple
> 'libpq.tar.gz' that could be downloaded, nice and small, then we've just
> made enabling PgSQL by default in mod_php4 brain dead ...
Case in point
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Sorry, I think I wasn't making myself clear. I think that's a
> splendid idea. But I'm not sure it's worth paying for it by making
> users who want the whole thing download multiple packages. Maybe I'm
> alone in thinking that, however, and it's not like I feel terri
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:11:40PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> hassle? Everyone is arguing 'why mysql vs pgsql?' ... if we had a simple
> 'libpq.tar.gz' that could be downloaded, nice and small, then we've just
> made enabling PgSQL by default in mod_php4 brain dead ...
Sorry, I think I wa
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:36:43PM -0300, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
>
> When you install freebsd or linux, is it a problem that all the
> perl modules you need have to fetched from cpan ? why can't they
> call just be part of the OS ?'
Well, not just part of the OS, but part of Perl. And after all,
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > > One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll
> > > find out anything about its portability until we get a lot
> Besides, more generally, Postgres already has a reputation as being
> difficult to install. The proposal to separate out all the
> "non-basics" (I'm not even sure how one would draw that line: maybe a
> server-only package and a client-library package run through GBorg?)
> would mean that anyon
I too do not like alot of bloat in the distribution, but I also agree
with what Andrew is saying.
Currently, at the FTP site, you can download the whole tar file, or in 4
separate tarballs. How hard would it be to create a separate tarball for
client related packages? I am not sure if this would
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:08:33PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > One reason for wanting to integrate libpqxx is that I don't think we'll
> > find out anything about its portability until we get a lot of people
> > trying to build it. If it's a separate
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> > Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while
> > this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx...
>
> Marc's opinion is not the same thing as a done deal ;-) --- we still
> h
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:11:06AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > * libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should
> > > be integrated or reversed out before beta.
> >
> > I've requestsed t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Conway) writes:
> Mentioning that on -hackers would have been nice -- I've spent a while
> this week hacking autoconf / Makefiles to integrate libpqxx...
Marc's opinion is not the same thing as a done deal ;-) --- we still
have to discuss this, and if someone's already doi
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:11:06AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> > * libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should
> > be integrated or reversed out before beta.
>
> I've requestsed that Jeorgen(sp?) move this over to GBorg ... its
> s
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> * libpqxx is not integrated into build process nor docs. It should
> be integrated or reversed out before beta.
I've requestsed that Jeorgen(sp?) move this over to GBorg ... its
something that can, and should be, built seperately from the base
distribution
18 matches
Mail list logo
