Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> > Is telling the rpm maintainers to go fix their rpm's an option?  As has
> > been hashed out before, the only thing that makes plphp different from
> > other pl's is that some of the current packagers are taking shortcuts
> > with the packaging scripts which introduces dependency issues. IMHO what
> > is included in the postgresql cvs and what is included in the main
> > tarball for postgresql should not be dictated by outside packagers.
>
> "Outside packagers"?  What makes you think PG RPMs are built by outside
> packagers?  The PGDG RPMs are certainly built by us, and Red Hat's PG
> RPMs are built by somebody named Tom Lane, and last I heard Oliver
> Elphick was handling the Debian packaging.  We have more control over
> those things than you might think.  What we don't have control over is
> what the PHP people choose to put in their tarball ... and that means
> there's a circularity problem if we try to merge plphp.  I think you
> are blaming the messengers.

Oliver's not the only Debian person working on the PostgreSQL packages
for Debian.  Oliver certainly does a great deal of excellent work on the
core PostgreSQL packages, I don't mean to claim otherwise, but Martin
Pitt helps out a great deal with those, and various other packages are
maintained by others (such as the php4-pgsql packages, which appear to
currently be maintained by Steve Langasek, the libdbd-pg-perl packages
which appear to be maintained by Raphael Hertzog, etc).

Not arguing with you, you're right, Oliver's certainly one of the
maintainers of the Debian core PostgreSQL packages, just not the only
one.
Thanks,
    Stephen