On Thursday, August 30, 2018 1:15:19 PM CEST Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2018-08-29, Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > While the split is reasonable, this change has IMHO one big flaw and
> > that is the change of the names, which are not really intuitive.
> >
> I second that. I'd rather see postgresql-client providing the libpq
> library. It's symmetric to postgresql-server name.
It would IMO cause even more confusion; historically the client db
tooling is in <DB> package in Fedora, and server in <DB>-server (unlike
Debian, e.g.). And libs used to be in <DB>-libs.
There are two basic client libs, pq and ecpg, and if we had something like
'postgresql-client-libs' package - I'd expect both to be there. But at
the same time, both libs can have different lifecycle (we might need to
update libpq to support newer PostgreSQL server version, while libecpg
might well stay untouched).
That means that we'd like to have both libs built separately, and thus
we need some naming that suits single library only.
Note that e.g. Debian also has lib{pq,ecpg}{,-dev}, so it's not that new
(or unknown) naming for packages in PostgreSQL community; it sounded like
a pretty good choice to us.
Pavel
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
