> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 22 March 2006 22:02 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Tony Caduto; Devrim GUNDUZ; pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] question about the admin contrib > module and binary > > "Dave Page" <dpage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Yeah - wxWidgets, GTK etc. but none are required by the > admin module, > > only by pgAdmin itself on the users workstation. > > Oh, so what we're talking about is some server-side support functions > for the pgAdmin client? OK, that's not what I was envisioning. From > a dependency standpoint it might be OK to package that as a contrib > module. I would say the main point for or against is whether you are > ready to tie the releases of the support functions to releases of the > core server. If they should naturally go with pgAdmin releases then > it'd be sticky to have them in contrib. They're primarily tied to the PostgreSQL version, however, what I see as the bigger problem is that 99% of what is in there has been rejected for inclusion in the core server because (mainly) you wanted to find better ways of achieving what we were doing - think pg_file_write(). However, if you're happy to have them in /contrib that might well make life easier until we come up with acceptable alternatives for core (as it happens I submitted a discussion proposal for the conference precisely to hash out the remote config management stuff). > There's also a licensing issue which is that pgAdmin is GPL, while > we're trying to make sure that all contrib modules are licensed > the same as the core server. Yeuch, not GPL - Artistic. But that shouldn't cause any problems - there are only 3 ppl who have ever worked on it and I wouldn't see a licence change being a issue. Regards, Dave.
