Re: JDBC split and move ...

> > It seems to me that Marc's real complaint could be addressed by a make
> > target that builds a libpq-only source tarball.  That does not mean that
> > the source files involved have to be separated into a different CVS tree
> > or a different full-distribution tarball.  The RPM builds are already
> > doing similar things quite successfully.
>
> for libpq and psql, that I have no problem with, sorry, kinda got
> over-zealous in my para above :)
>
> as for jdbc/odbc and other such ... if a make target is doable there too,
> so be it ... my real beef here is that I can't get one piece I need
> without having to download the whole thing ... I think the 'seperate
> release cycle' would be of a real benefit also, to those projects, but if
> those maintaining don't feel the same, I'm not going to argue until I'm
> blue in the face over it ...

What would be real interesting is an interfaces CVS with everything
_but_ libpq.  Most interfaces rely on libpq, and the API doesn't change
much, and ODBC/JDBC are usually backward compatibile.  There is some
logic that non-libpq interfaces could stand on its own with its own
release cycle.

--
  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