> > 1.) Addition of a postgresql-lib subpackage.
> What exactly will be in this one?
> One major gripe about the RPMs I have is that the client package is named
> "postgresql". If I install "postgresql" I'd sort of expect a database
> server. I suggest naming the package "postgresql-clients".
We had it this way for some time, and I found it annoying for at least a
couple of reasons stemming from the observation that in a real
distributed system, there will be more clients than servers:
1) The docs etc should colocate with clients, and RPMs make that more
difficult if the "primary package" does not have the base name of the
total package. If the docs (or at least some docs) are traveling with
the clients, and if it would be easiest to find them in
/usr/doc/postgresql-7.1/, then that package should have the docs (it
does). If Lamar moves them to a -docs package, then they will show up in
/usr/doc/postgresql-docs-7.1/ which is redundantly named and somewhat
obscure to guessing.
2) The base package should be able to be installed in a useful way by
itself. For a single-machine installation, both will be installed
anyway, but in general a server cannot be accessed or configured without
the client interfaces available.
In response to
pgsql-ports by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-12-12 13:48:59|
|Subject: Re: [PORTS] Re: 1)Can't compile with ODBC support. 2)FATAL 1:
AllocSetAlloc() on Pentium computer.|
|Previous:||From: Lamar Owen||Date: 2000-12-11 21:39:25|
|Subject: Re: RPM changes for 7.1.|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB||Date: 2000-12-12 08:32:35|
|Subject: AW: SourceForge & Postgres|
|Previous:||From: Tim Perdue||Date: 2000-12-12 06:40:14|
|Subject: Re: SourceForge & Postgres|