[postgis-devel] [postgis-users] Allowing use of PostGIS EXTENSION w/out raster

[Regina Obe]

>>> The proposals are:
>>
>>  1) Move raster to its own extension "postgis_raster"
>>     See https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3888

> this gets us two extensions, and if we split into N, we will have N
extensions.

Greg I'm missing something here.  If you go with this option you still have

2^N and a dependency wreck. 

Because the full PostGIS would still have to ship the same number of
extension scripts even with the postgis_raster broken out.
Don't confuse packaging with the way the PostgreSQL extension model is set
up, they are not the same.

The PostgreSQL extension was just designed to allow people an easy install
process.

Also given how breaking of a change 1 is, I think we maybe should just table
this discussion for PostGIS 3.0  when everyone will be prepared for breaking
changes.

And people who insist on compiling without raster support just have to use
scripts as they always have had to.

>  2) Provide two versions of extension "postgis"
>     See https://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/3890

> If we split into N, we will end up with 2^N.


> I think 2^N is untenable, and option 1 is therefore the only reasonable
choice.

Again it's not the same and you efforts in packaging are exactly the same.

If you wanted to create two distinct packages, you'd either copy select
files or you would compile postgis twice, once with raster and once without.
It's the same story without option 1 or 2.


> I don't see the pain of people updating to the new world as being large or
that hard.

It's huge enough not to do it in PostGIS 2.5