
Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ...

Basically, CVS let's you "merge" modules into one mega-module, which is
what I've just done ...

I pulled out two sub-directories from the pgsql CVS repository ...
contrib/earthdistance and src/interfaces/libpqxx ... if you do:

cvs checkout -P libpqxx

you'll see *just* the libpqxx code ... same with doing a checkout of
'earthdistance' ...

If you checkout pgsql, it will get the source tree *minus* libpqxx and
earthdistance ...

And, finally, if you want it all:

cvs checkout -P pgsql-all

Now, for those that are going to yell out about already checked out code
... don't, I've already tested that too ...

 From within your checked out code, remove the above two directories, then
from the top level (ie. if you have your src in src/pgsql, go to the src
directory, *not* the root of the source tree itself) and type:

cvs checkout -P contrib interfaces

and you will be 'in sync' ...

Next thing I'm going to do is modify the scripts that build the .tar.gz
packages so that they now build a libpqxx.tar.gz and earthdistance.tar.gz
distribution, so that they can be downloaded seperately, as well as
pulling out the README files so that ppl know what they are useful for in
the first place ...

For those that like to work on the 'mega source tree', nothing has changed
... you check out pgsql-all, and commits will commit to the right places
in the repository ...

If ppl want to download everything, including the kitchen sink, then they
will have that option ... but if ppl want to just download what they need,
that option is now open to them as well ...

Now comes the 'tricky part, which I'm hoping someone like Peter might know
how to do ... I know there is a way of writing configure to 'run
configure' in sub projects .. for instance, with libpqxx ... at the top
level of pgsql, one could type:

./configure --enable-libpqxx

and it would run the appropriate configure in the libpqxx subdirectory and
add libpqxx to the 'targets' in src/interfaces/Makefile ...

If we can get *that* done, removing something like libpq++ would be a
simple matter of removing the option from configure.in at the top level,
and removing its inclusion in the pgsql-all meta on the CVS repository ...

nice and clean ...

I've only done libpqxx and earthdistance right now ... none of the history
is lost, but I want to get the packaging issue worked out using those two
first, before I dive into the others ... also, want to make sure that I
haven't overlooked anything in my testing ...

*Eventually*, a simple checkout of 'pgsql' should result in a "server
only" distribution that we can pull bits and pieces into transparently ...

the really cool thing is that using PHP, I could probably come up with a
nice simple interface that ppl could create a custom download bundle:

	"I want the base server + jdbc + the earth distance module"

and it would package that up and present it to them to download ... then
everyone can package whatever they want and download it ...






Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:38:47 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
> Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
> against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
> arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
> middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ...

Personally, I'd like to be able to have a "client-only" distro, but other
than that I'm not fussed.  I like the convenience of having all the contribs
in contrib, however some sort of CPgAN thing would be sweet as.

Currently, the guy who maintains the FreeBSD postgres port has hacked up a
client only version that does all the building, but only installs the client
stuff.

Chris


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 10:06:07 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> > Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
> > against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
> > arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
> > middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ...
>
> Personally, I'd like to be able to have a "client-only" distro, but other
> than that I'm not fussed.  I like the convenience of having all the contribs
> in contrib, however some sort of CPgAN thing would be sweet as.
>
> Currently, the guy who maintains the FreeBSD postgres port has hacked up a
> client only version that does all the building, but only installs the client
> stuff.

Ya, which is what the MySQL port does also ... but you still have to
download the complete distro ... the other thing to consider is that we
have how many mirrors right now?  That are paying for the bandwidth to
mirror the software and provide it to the community?  If 100 ppl that just
need, for instance, the libpq libraries could download *just* the
libpq.tar.gz file and install it, how much bandwidth does that save
overall?  Bruce figured that the libpq.tar.gz stuff he did for me saved
~1/10 the space of the whole distro ... so if the distro is ~8Meg, that
means that the libpq is ~800k ... so we're talking about a saving of,
what, ~720Meg of bandwidth?  It doesn't sound like alot when you aren't
paying for it, but it definitely adds up quickly to those that are ...


Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:26:10 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
...
> *Eventually*, a simple checkout of 'pgsql' should result in a "server
> only" distribution that we can pull bits and pieces into transparently ...

I'm still not quite sure where this is headed or why, but if nothing
else pgsql could and should be the whole thing, and pgsql-server could
be the server subset. Server-only makes sense for only some users, and
nothing apparently makes sense for everyone. But we may as well have the
old names do the old things...

                - Thomas

Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:53:09 -0700
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> ...
> > *Eventually*, a simple checkout of 'pgsql' should result in a "server
> > only" distribution that we can pull bits and pieces into transparently ...
>
> I'm still not quite sure where this is headed or why, but if nothing
> else pgsql could and should be the whole thing, and pgsql-server could
> be the server subset. Server-only makes sense for only some users, and
> nothing apparently makes sense for everyone. But we may as well have the
> old names do the old things...

will make those changes in the morning ...



Thu, 1 Aug 2002 04:16:24 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Wednesday 31 July 2002 09:38 pm, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Okay ... since this is pretty much going to be 'one camp for, one camp
> against' without anything to really back up either camps perspectives /
> arguments, I did some research on CVS in order to find a nice, effective
> middle ground ... and it actually works quite sweet ...

MAn, did I ever pick a bad day to be offline for a whole day. :-)

If anyone cares to look, or for that matter cares at all, something similar is 
already being done in the binary RPMs.  I have split, sliced, and diced this 
distribution for over three years.  So, let me share some of the experiences 
learned from that exercise.

> Now comes the 'tricky part, which I'm hoping someone like Peter might know
> how to do ... I know there is a way of writing configure to 'run
> configure' in sub projects .. for instance, with libpqxx ... at the top
> level of pgsql, one could type:

> ./configure --enable-libpqxx

I like this idea, up to an extent.  I guess it boils down to this:
1.)	What is the minimum build environment necessary to build anything in the 
source distribution;
2.)	What degree of granularity is desired;
3.)	We must not assume the presence of a full source tree to build _anything_, 
only the minimum build system, which can then handle everything else as a 
module.

Then I could much more easily package a 'postgresql-devel' package that would 
allow, for instance, PostGIS to be built as a server module without having to 
have the entire source distribution tree in place (which is currently 
required).  As PostGIS is a separately developed and distributed module, it 
seems reasonable that it should be buildable without the full source tree in 
place. 

As to getting rid of bloat, I'm all for splitting out contrib modules, client 
libraries, and the like into separate projects.  If the build system is a 
unit, and is not dependent upon the server or libpq source code, then it is 
easier and more consistent to just require it to be in place to build ANY 
contrib or client module.

We're too big and too spread out.  It was said (by Andrew) that we're hard to 
install -- why is that?  Is it possible that it is _because_ of the number of 
pieces we include?

And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It 
is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.

But, if you are an RPM user, you can already just download the pieces for a 
minimal client-side system.  And you have been able to do so for right at 
three years, give or take.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:25:47 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
> And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I 
> like it.  It 
> is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> 

This may sound like a dumb question, but DBD::Pg == DBI right ? not pg.pm

I code perl about 25 hours a week, and DBI has never failed me yet.

Jeff.

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:05:28 -0300
"Jeff MacDonald" <jeff@tsunamicreek.com>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thursday 01 August 2002 12:05 pm, Jeff MacDonald wrote:
> > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I
> > like it.  It
> > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.

> This may sound like a dumb question, but DBD::Pg == DBI right ? not pg.pm

Right.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 12:20:05 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Lamar Owen wrote:
> And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It 
> is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.

I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:27:47 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It 
> > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> 
> I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.

OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:21:10 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It
> > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> >
> > I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> > updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.
>
> OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.

Hmm,

according README from DBD-Pg ( 1.13 ), it's maintained now by
Jeffrey W. Baker (jwbaker@acm.org)

DBD::Pg  --  a PostgreSQL interface for Perl 5.

   $Id: README,v 1.3 2002/04/10 02:01:38 jwb Exp $

   Copyright (c) 1997,1998,1999,2000 Edmund Mergl
   Copyright (c) 2002 Jeffrey W. Baker
   Portions Copyright (c) 1994,1995,1996,1997 Tim Bunce

I'm  a little bit aware about DBD::Pg because it needs many changes and
testing to be 7.3 compliant.

Jeffrey, wake up :-)


>
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 21:52:15 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It
> > > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> > >
> > > I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> > > updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.
> >
> > OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> > tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.
> 
> Hmm,
> 
> according README from DBD-Pg ( 1.13 ), it's maintained now by
> Jeffrey W. Baker (jwbaker@acm.org)
> 
> DBD::Pg  --  a PostgreSQL interface for Perl 5.
> 
>    $Id: README,v 1.3 2002/04/10 02:01:38 jwb Exp $
> 
>    Copyright (c) 1997,1998,1999,2000 Edmund Mergl
>    Copyright (c) 2002 Jeffrey W. Baker
>    Portions Copyright (c) 1994,1995,1996,1997 Tim Bunce
> 
> I'm  a little bit aware about DBD::Pg because it needs many changes and
> testing to be 7.3 compliant.
> 
> Jeffrey, wake up :-)

Oh, that's strange. I wonder why Edmund didn't mention that.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:53:24 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It
> > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> >
> > I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> > updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.
>
> OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.

If you know how to, please import it as a seperate module, do not add it
to the pgsql tree itself ... if you don't know how, please just forward it
onto me and I'll get it into the repository ...


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:11:02 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...

Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?

   You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
   License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.



On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It
> > > > is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.
> > >
> > > I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> > > updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.
> >
> > OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> > tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.
>
> Hmm,
>
> according README from DBD-Pg ( 1.13 ), it's maintained now by
> Jeffrey W. Baker (jwbaker@acm.org)
>
> DBD::Pg  --  a PostgreSQL interface for Perl 5.
>
>    $Id: README,v 1.3 2002/04/10 02:01:38 jwb Exp $
>
>    Copyright (c) 1997,1998,1999,2000 Edmund Mergl
>    Copyright (c) 2002 Jeffrey W. Baker
>    Portions Copyright (c) 1994,1995,1996,1997 Tim Bunce
>
> I'm  a little bit aware about DBD::Pg because it needs many changes and
> testing to be 7.3 compliant.
>
> Jeffrey, wake up :-)
>
>
> >
> >
>
> 	Regards,
> 		Oleg
> _____________________________________________________________
> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
> Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>
>


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:13:51 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
> 
>    You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
>    License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.

Artistic License is fine, I think.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:19:11 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thursday 01 August 2002 02:21 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like
> > > it.  It is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the
> > > standard now.

> > I have been in contact with Edmund about moving DBD into our CVS and
> > updating CPAN ourselves.  Should have a final answer soon.

> OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.

Um, is putting it into our tarball necessary, or even desireable?  It is 
separately maintained as part of CPAN.  Is there some fundamental reason that 
we _must_ ship a perl client (the same goes for tcl/tk/python/c++ as well) if 
it is adequately maintained in the standard location?  Perlers know to go to 
CPAN.  Likewise Pythonistas have their own place.

And that's the crux of Marc's message, I believe -- why can't we minimize 
here?
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:35:55 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Bruce Momjian writes:

> Artistic License is fine, I think.

The Artistic License doesn't even qualify as Free Software as far as the
FSF is concerned.

More generally, it is a different license, and that is a problem.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:37:04 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Bruce Momjian writes:

> OK, I got the go-ahead from Edmund.  We will have DBD:pg in the 7.3
> tarball.  I will add it to CVS today or tomorrow.

Pleeeeease, no more Perl modules in our CVS!  The ones we have are already
messy enough to build.

I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:37:19 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:37 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
> Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?

It's already in CPAN.  A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.

I also thought we were discussing trimming the tree; and that was a good 
feeling.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:44:08 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Lamar Owen wrote:

> On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:37 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
> > Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?
>
> It's already in CPAN.  A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.
>
> I also thought we were discussing trimming the tree; and that was a good
> feeling.

Oh thank you to both you and Peter .... I was feeling sooooo alone out
here ...



Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:09:19 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> 
> > Artistic License is fine, I think.
> 
> The Artistic License doesn't even qualify as Free Software as far as the
> FSF is concerned.
> 
> More generally, it is a different license, and that is a problem.

Well, our ODBC is LGPL.  I wonder if Edmund can/would change the
license.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 01 August 2002 04:37 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > I thought we were talking about trimming the source tree, not adding more.
> > Why not put it on gborg or somewhere else?
> 
> It's already in CPAN.  A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.
> 
> I also thought we were discussing trimming the tree; and that was a good 
> feeling.

Lamar, you said earlier today:

> And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it.  It 
> is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.

So I assumed you wanted DBD:Pg.  DBD:Pg is a good example of an
interface that hasn't advanced a quickly as it would have had it been in
our CVS tree.  I have received a number of bug reports for it, and have
them in my mailbox.  I have no idea if they made it into the CPAN
version.  Moving interfaces out can be a problem too unless there is a
large enough group to grow it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 17:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
On Thursday 01 August 2002 05:22 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > It's already in CPAN.  A link to CPAN should suffice, IMHO.

> > I also thought we were discussing trimming the tree; and that was a good
> > feeling.

> Lamar, you said earlier today:
> > And the sooner our very old perl client goes away, the better I like it. 
> > It is a good client, don't get me wrong: but DBD:Pg is the standard now.

> So I assumed you wanted DBD:Pg.

I'm sorry I gave that impression; I was advocating removing the old Pg module 
in favor of people using the DBD::Pg module, which is distributed separately 
in CPAN.  I wasn't advocating bringing DBD::Pg into our distribution; my 
apologies for giving the wrong impression.  

DBD::Pg is typically distributed separately even in things such as Red Hat 
Linux, where it lives as a separate RPM.  There's also qt-PostgreSQL, 
php-pgsql, mod_auth_pgsql, and others that are doing quite OK outside our 
CVS.  The OpenACS/AOLserver PostgreSQL driver is a good example of a client 
outside our CVS that is being very well maintained by its group.

We should be providing the core client library, the backend, and 
documentation.  Contrib modules (earthdistance, etc), other clients, and 
things that don't fit in the core should be separately tarballed -- not 
necessarily separately CVS'd -- the AOLserver CVS, for instance, has a number 
of modules, all of which are somewhat independent.

Those modules then need to be buildable with a set of headers and makefile 
includes ONLY. Without assuming any paths.

>  DBD:Pg is a good example of an
> interface that hasn't advanced a quickly as it would have had it been in
> our CVS tree.  I have received a number of bug reports for it, and have
> them in my mailbox.  I have no idea if they made it into the CPAN
> version.  Moving interfaces out can be a problem too unless there is a
> large enough group to grow it.

Even if it's in a CVS at postgresql.org it doesn't necessarily need to be in 
the main tarball.  Even stuff in our CVS can languish -- witness the pgaccess 
revival outside the CVS tree.

The main tarball needs dramatic splitting into independent pieces, with a 
build framework that can deal with the pieces.  If I want a perl client, the 
backend, and PostGIS, I should be able to download the build system, the perl 
client, the backend, and PostGIS and make it work.  And each module shouldn't 
require the source of the other modules to build -- just the necessary bits 
in headers.  If I want just the python client, I should be able to download 
the client-side development headers, configure, and makefile, then download 
the python client, and build it.

And if I already have headers installed as part of a RPM or from source, I 
shouldn't need config.guess, configure, makefile.global, or anything but a 
set of C headers to get the python client to build.  IOW the python client 
should be somewhat independent.

It CAN be done -- the AOLServer/OpenACS PostgreSQL driver does it -- all it 
needs is the path to the headers and to libpq and it's off to the races.

I guess I'm saying that we're too big and too popular to include the kitchen 
sink in the tarball anymore.  We need to think more modularly -- and not 
assume a source tree with those modules.
-- 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Thu, 1 Aug 2002 18:27:13 -0400
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...


Someone said earlier cvsup would have problems but the anonymous cvs would work
fine. 

Well I've just had a weirdness reconfiguring and rebuilding my few weeks old
7.3dev tree and so deleted it and tried using the anoncvs to get pgsql. Running
configure gives me the error:

./configure: ./src/template/linux: No such file or directory

and all ./src contains is:

total 44
drwxr-xr-x    2 software software     4096 Aug  1 23:27 CVS
-rw-r--r--    1 software software      119 Jul 30  1999 DEVELOPERS
-rw-r--r--    1 software software     1039 Jul 30 18:47 Makefile
-rw-r--r--    1 software software    13288 Jul 27 21:10 Makefile.global.in
-rw-r--r--    1 software software    10853 Jul 27 21:10 Makefile.shlib
drwxr-xr-x   23 software software     4096 Aug  1 23:27 backend



-- 
Nigel J. Andrews
Director

---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants


Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:35:31 +0100 (BST)
"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
>> 
>> You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
>> License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.

> Artistic License is fine, I think.

The Artistic License is cool, but it's not BSD.  Are we going to drop
our recent agreement to try to move the distribution to all-BSD terms
so easily?

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 02 Aug 2002 00:38:56 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ... 
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >> Ummm ... stupid question, but can we even bring this into the 'core'?
> >>
> >> You may distribute under the terms of either the GNU General Public
> >> License or the Artistic License, as specified in the Perl README file.
>
> > Artistic License is fine, I think.
>
> The Artistic License is cool, but it's not BSD.  Are we going to drop
> our recent agreement to try to move the distribution to all-BSD terms
> so easily?

that's kinda what I'm wondering ... but, as someone else already asked
also, is there a reason why we are even bringing this into the
distirbution, vs, say, moving it to GBorg?  I do like the ability for us
to modify the code itself, but haven't put it into the repository yet
since at least one person (or was it two?) questioned whether it should
even be in there ...

Personally, I'd love to put it into GBorg and have someone assigned as a
maintainer for any patch submissions, or someone that wants to actively
work on it ...



Fri, 2 Aug 2002 03:48:54 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ... 
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> The Artistic License doesn't even qualify as Free Software as far as the
> FSF is concerned.

Errr, http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html lists it as not
only Free Software but GPL-compatible.

Mike.

02 Aug 2002 08:47:38 -0400
Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman@debian.org>
Re: Trimming the Fat, Part Deux ...