[postgis-devel] [postgis-users] Allowing use of PostGIS EXTENSION w/out raster
gdt at lexort.com
Mon Oct 9 16:36:01 PDT 2017
"Regina Obe" <lr at pcorp.us> writes:
>>>> 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
> 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.
What I meant is that instead of assuming raster or no raster, let's
assume that besides the core we have 4 options.
So then we would have to build 16 versions of postgis, instead of core
and 4 extensions.
I wasn't even thinking about upgrade scripts.
> And people who insist on compiling without raster support just have to use
> scripts as they always have had to.
But is it necessary to talk about "compiling without raster support", vs
"raster support not loaded"? From the packaging viewpoint, I don't
like options in how things are built, just subsets of installing.
>>> 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
> 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 meant with 4 instead of 1.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the postgis-devel