Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions

Clinging to sanity, scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") mumbled into her beard:
>>> Behind what?  A list on pgFoundry of recommended software?  Sure
>>> ... integrating that list into the physical postgresql.tar.gz file
>>> that is the core server distribution?  No ...
>>
>> The core server distribution is left untouched by all this.
>
> Ah, then you've got me on side :)

I think this is something that's mostly self-filtering.

You'd be likely to see things fall into two categories:

 - Projects that are poorly supported, which will have a hard
   time keeping working in this form;

 - Projects that are well-supported where there are steadily
   "working releases" that people are finding easy to use.

The step that takes place AFTER all that is thus...

Distribution makers (whether for RPMs, .debs, Ports, etc.)  will find,
based on the above categorization, that some projects are easy to
build packages for and to keep up to date with the "true official PG
Core" packages.

And other third party projects will be difficult/impossible to so
support.  Presumably the same ones that, from numerous other
perspectives, we'd regard as being dubious recommendations.

If what is provided is sufficiently akin to what CPAN and such do that
this allows the distribution makers to _AUTOMATE_ the way they
generate packages for the add-ins, that makes it way easier for people
to say...

 "You're running Frobozz Linux?  Well, they have RPMs for [these
  extensions]; that'll surely make it easy for you to deploy
  that..."
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/finances.html
I'M SORRY, LUSER, I CAN'T LET YOU DO THAT.  WHY DON'T YOU LIE DOWN AND
TAKE A STRESS PILL?  MY NAME IS  LM1.  I WAS  MADE AT THE LISP MACHINE
FACTORY  IN MASSACHUSETTS ON  DECEMBER 12, 1992.   MY  TEACHER WAS MR.
WINSTON.  HE TAUGHT ME A PROGRAM.  WOULD YOU LIKE TO  SEE IT?  HERE IT
IS: