About pgevent
If pgevent is a DLL, why is it in src/bin?
We cannot have binary files like MSG00001.bin in our source tree, no
matter how convenient it is. The distributors are going to kill us for
that. Please find another way.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
If pgevent is a DLL, why is it in src/bin?
We cannot have binary files like MSG00001.bin in our source tree, no
matter how convenient it is. The distributors are going to
kill us for
that. Please find another way.
The discussion back when it was decided weighted things back and forth.
The main thing is that we'd include an extra build dependency for win32,
which would be the Microsoft toolkit, several hundred Mb to download
just to build a 32 byte file.
What distributors would kill us for that, and why? The file is only ever
built (indeed, the whole directory is only *entered*) on win32.
//Magnus
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Magnus Hagander wrote:
The discussion back when it was decided weighted things back and
forth. The main thing is that we'd include an extra build dependency
for win32, which would be the Microsoft toolkit, several hundred Mb
to download just to build a 32 byte file.
Think about what "open source" means. It doesn't mean that we give our
users binary blobs compiled on some guy's machine, because it's too
inconvenient to obtain the build tools. If it's too inconvenient to
obtain build tools, you use a binary distribution anyway.
On closer inspection this stuff should probably be moved to src/utils in
any case. It's clearly not a user binary, so it doesn't belong under
src/bin.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
The discussion back when it was decided weighted things back and
forth. The main thing is that we'd include an extra build dependency
for win32, which would be the Microsoft toolkit, several hundred Mb
to download just to build a 32 byte file.Think about what "open source" means. It doesn't mean that we
give our
users binary blobs compiled on some guy's machine, because it's too
inconvenient to obtain the build tools. If it's too inconvenient to
obtain build tools, you use a binary distribution anyway.
How is this so different from the fact that we distribute the
"configure" script? People can just go download autoconf, right? Or
flex/bison output files. If it's too inconvenient to obtain build tools,
use a binary distribution.
It's not like we don't provide the source. You can rebuild it if you
want to. (Or just look at the file and realise it's probably nothing to
worry about)
On closer inspection this stuff should probably be moved to
src/utils in
any case. It's clearly not a user binary, so it doesn't belong under
src/bin.
Yeah, that doesn't sounds all wrong. It is of course a different issue
alltogether... I *think* (but can't say I know) that the reason it went
into src/bin was that there is no actual place for "generic libs".
interfaces and pl are, well, interfaces and pls. And utils/ don't
currently install things. But it could certainly be moved there and
installed from there, doesn't really matter.
//Magnus
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
Think about what "open source" means. It doesn't mean that we give our
users binary blobs compiled on some guy's machine, because it's too
inconvenient to obtain the build tools. If it's too inconvenient to
obtain build tools, you use a binary distribution anyway.
If I understand what the README is saying, pgmsgevent.mc is the source
file (the "preferred form for modification"), and MSG00001.bin is just
prebuilt output from it. It's unpleasant that it's not text, but I
don't see that this is fundamentally different from providing configure
along with configure.in.
regards, tom lane