On Tuesday, February 14, 2017, David E. Wheeler <da...@justatheory.com>

> On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:37 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > It's a failing in one of the two at least. It either needs to be easier
> to build the things on windows, or pgxn would need to learn to do binary
> distributions.
> PGXN makes no effort to support installation on any platform at all. Happy
> to work with anyone who wants to add binary distribution, but supporting
> multiple platforms might be a PITA. Maybe thereā€™d be a way to integrate
> with the RPM and .deb and Windows repos (is there something like that for
> Windows?).

Yeah, I think the core of the problem that nobody does that for platforms
ohter than RPM and DEB today (more or less). And the effort for those isn't
coordinated at that level, only for the main packages.

It may not be that PGXN is the entity that should be doing it, but if we
want to solve the problem than *someone* does. And until someone does, we
can't say "hey we have pgxn so extensions outside core are just as easy to
use as the ones in core".

WIndows does not have something quite to the level of DEB or RPM, but
there's definitely been some increase in the use of package managers
recently. I don't use or admin Windows anymore myself, but I've heard good
things about chocolatry for example. It might be worth investigating, if
somebody has the resources.

If we could somehow integrate PGXN with both the RPM build process, the DEB
build process and a Windows build process (whether driven by PGXN or just
"fed enough data" by PGXN is a different question), I think that would go a
long way towards the goal. Also being able to use this somehow to drive
continuous builds and tests (kind of like a buildfarm-lite for a subset of
platforms) would be useful for reaching a point where extensions outside of
core can come at least close to what we deliver in core.


 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Reply via email to