Nod. We do have some weirdness there. The schema is that packages built from
postgresql itself use postgresql-*-x.y (mostly), and all others use
postgresql-x.y-*. Arguably, that's confusing.
I have some plan in the back of my brain that extension modules should ship .so
files for all postgresql
Martin Pitt writes:
> Christoph Berg [2012-08-01 21:12 +0200]:
>> The various postgresql-* packages are mostly plugins (PL/something)
>
> Right, postgresql-X.Y-foo are server-side plugins which are specific
> to a major PostgreSQL server version. They need to be versioned just
> like PostgreSQL it
Fwiw, I'm not saying packages must not use the postgresql namespace, I'd just
leave it to the maintainer to decide.
Martin Pitt schrieb:
Hello Ansgar, Christoph,
Christoph Berg [2012-08-01 21:12 +0200]:
> The various postgresql-* packages are mostly plugins (PL/something)
Right, postgresql-
Hello Ansgar, Christoph,
Christoph Berg [2012-08-01 21:12 +0200]:
> The various postgresql-* packages are mostly plugins (PL/something)
Right, postgresql-X.Y-foo are server-side plugins which are specific
to a major PostgreSQL server version. They need to be versioned just
like PostgreSQL itself
I usually prefer packages to use the upstream name so they are easy to find
(think other distributions).
The various postgresql-* packages are mostly plugins (PL/something) which
follow the example of postgresql-plperl-x.y (built from PG core). For real
applications like barman, that's not real
5 matches
Mail list logo
