Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
* Greg Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080403 09:54]:
I emphatically do NOT mean
move to pgfoundry, which is pretty much a kiss of death.
But that begs the question of *why* it's a kiss of death?
For instance, in "perl land", having something in "CPAN" and not in
"perl core" is most certainly *not* a kiss of death? Why is it so
different for PostgreSQL?
Is it because the infrastructure behind CPAN is much better than that
behind pgfoundry?
I wouldn't say one is better than the other. PGFoundry and CPAN have
totally disjoint feature sets. PgFoundry's like SoruceForge +
Bugtrackers + Discussion Forums + Surveys + Mailing Lists -- pretty
much everything except installable packages.
CPAN and RubyGems is very much focused on installable packages.
Or is it because CPAN is better "vetted" and "organized" than pgfoundry?
Or is it because the projects that go into CPAN are better quality and
projects in pgroundry?
To simplify those two:
CPAN contains installers that mostly "just work".
PGFoundry contains mostly works-in-progress without installers.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
