Re: Database-specificisms considered harmful
Matthias Urlichs <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> * Package name : exim-mysql
> Personally, I do not like all those -mysql, -pgsql, -whatever packages.
Who does? :-(
> Whatever happened to the idea of using a common database access library
> like iODBC? It's reasonably small, Not A Burden if you happen to not
> require any database lookup features, and it doesn't bloat the archives
> with four versions of exim (-none, -mysql, -pgsql, and -kitchensink).
Just checking the dependencies and sizes on woody, neither libgda nor
unixodbc are more leightweight than linking directly against mysql
and pgsql *at* the *same* *time*.
217348 17. Jul 2002 /usr/lib/libmysqlclient.so.10.0.0
65636 31. Mär 2002 /usr/lib/libpq.so.2.2
60464 24. Mär 2002 usr/lib/libgda-client.so.0.0.0
148400 24. Mär 2002 usr/lib/libgda-common.so.0.0.0
472824 13. Apr 2002 usr/lib/libodbc.so.1.0.0
gda looks small but its interlibrary dependencies on woody are
completely over the top (complete GNOME), the version in sid is iirc
sane, but still pulls in libglib1.2, libxml1 and libxslt1, which makes
it bigger than libmysqlclient+libpq.
The crux of the whole matter with respect to exim is that it not
optimized for binary redistribution (else it would dlopen the lookup
modules) and that its *sql lookup methods are a lot older than gda and
> Personally, I would consider adding an appropriate paragraph to Policy.
> Something along the lines of
> * Programs which access SQL databases should do so through
> ... assuming that we can reach some sort of consensus on which library
> should be used..?
Imho switching from direct lookups to one of these wrapper libraries
isn't in the responsibilty of the debian maintainer _and_ I do not
think a paragraph in policy would buy anything (policy is no stick to
beat with), submitting patches to upstream might work.
Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette!
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_