Re: 7.0.x RPMs

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.0.x RPMs
Date: 2000-10-25 15:33:28
Message-ID: 39F6FD48.45ABC680@wgcr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> Someone reported a problem with /usr/include/pgsql/os.h and the
> underlying linux.h. I see a broken link for os.h, and somehow linux.h
> does not appear, though on the surface the spec file seems to be doing
> the right thing.

> I'm working with 7.0.2-3mdk (which is the same as your 7.0.2-3). Do you
> see this too, or has it been fixed in a subsequent version?

I don't have a 7.0.2-3.

It has been fixed in a subsequent version. Please upgrade your RPM
installation to the latest rpm-3.0.x from Mandrake, then pull
postgresql-7.0.2-19.src.rpm from rawhide. You will need to upgrade RPM
because that src.rpm is in v4 format. Yes: 7.0.2-_19_. Trond has been
busy :-).

I am working on back porting, amongst other issues.

There has been discussion about _why_ this is happening. Opinion seems
to be that 'make install' should be copying the port-specific file to
os.h instead of symlinking. What would your opinion be?

Subsequent versions (which haven't yet been uploaded to postgresql.org
yet due to a number of issues) simply include linux.h in %files for
-devel.

I will have a backport to RH 6.2 of -19 done by the end of this week
(being paid to do it, so I had better do it!), and will upload that.

Oh, Thomas, since the permissions on the PPC subdir in binary are such
that I can't delete the PPC RPMS, can you delete them and post a README
that there are serious problems with the LinuxPPC binary build currently
posted on PostgreSQL.org? We need to get them rebuilt with -O2 or less.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

  • 7.0.x RPMs at 2000-10-25 15:21:45 from Thomas Lockhart

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-10-25 15:42:22 Re: Bogus-looking SSL code in postmaster wait loop
Previous Message Jeff Tucker 2000-10-25 15:22:07 Postgres Question