Re: [HACKERS] Packaging of postgresql-jdbc

On Wednesday 17 of February 2016 17:13:29 Dave Cramer wrote:
> I think I already made my position clear. The time to chime in on how we
> organized the code is not after we do a major re-organization.

ACK.

> FWIW, I've had conversations with other people in redhat projects that
> consume the driver and they use maven

At least this discussion is with Fedora hat on so if some Red Hat people
use jar from maven, it is not that important.  I'm taking Fedora as
self-standing distribution, which provides Java ; provides PostgreSQL ;
but needs to provide up-2-date 'pgjdbc' (important part of system!).
Sounds like trivial task.

> This is the defacto standard for java dependency resolution. At least
> one other programming language use a similar mechanism. I can think of
> three off the top of my head. Python, go, ruby.

Right, we must support 'maven', 'pip', 'gem', 'npm', ... but it does not
mean that we can make "system package" dependant on software provided by
repository managed by those tools.  We can't.  Our users are free to use
this software, and it is their's responsibility.

> What project in the distribution requires this dependency? Probably JBoss
> as it appears to be the last major product that is still built using ant?

(a) it is not as important as you think - and I thus do not care too much
who is using it within Red Hat.  Within the set of packages I
(co-)maintain [1] there are pieces of system which need to be available on
in native repositories (including pgjdbc).  This is similar for other
distros.
(b) How is this relevant to 'ant' build system?  We can use maven build.

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/praiskup/

Pavel