Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: RPM changes for 7.1.

From: Karl DeBisschop <karl(at)debisschop(dot)net>
To:
Cc: pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RPM changes for 7.1.
Date: 2000-12-13 23:21:24
Message-ID: 3A380474.998BE199@debisschop.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> Similarly, I find it not useful that PL/Perl and thrown together with
> Pg.pm, and PL/Tcl is thrown together with pgtclsh.  Maybe you want to make
> a separate postgresql-server-{perl,tcl} package.  I think you already
> suggested that.

I agree -- I use DBD, and thus do not feel the need for Pg.pm, but I do use
PL/Perl.

> > However, I am not leaning towards a separate docs subpackage -- it was
> > suggested to me, and I placed it on my list for discussion.
> 
> I don't think this is a bad idea.  Maybe people only want to install the
> docs once in their network and make them available via a web server.  I
> did it that way.

I have created docs packages in the past. Until I was reminded of the
--excludedocs option for rpm. Actually, I may have been one who suggested a
docs package for PostgreSQL)

> > Making the postgresql package depend upon the postgresql-libs package is
> > easy enough.  That means you do have at leats two packages to install.
> 
> (On a quiet night you can hear the Debian users laughing...)
> 
> > One example of a split that seems to work well (AFAIK) is the amanda
> > network backup tool.
> 
> > The main package contains files common to the client and server.
> 
> In PostgreSQL there are, strictly speaking, no files in common to client
> and server.
> 
> Two more points:
> 
> * createlang, droplang, and pg_id should be in the server package.
> 
> * Maybe you want to create a postgresql-server-devel package with the
> backend header files.  These are needed rather seldom.

Would we have postgresql-server-devel and postgresql-clients-devel?
This splits things up rather finely, but it seems consistent, and I 
tend to like that -- overall the way Lamar is going sounds very good 
to me. And supports a point from an old discussion -- no matter how 
good the developers are (and they are great) -- it really helps to 
have a good packager as well.

-- 
Karl DeBisschop                      kdebisschop(at)alert(dot)infoplease(dot)com
Learning Network/Information Please  http://www.infoplease.com
Netsaint Plugin Developer            kdebisschop(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Korshunov IlyaDate: 2000-12-14 08:24:07
Subject:
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-12-13 20:05:03
Subject: Re: RPM changes for 7.1.

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alfred PerlsteinDate: 2000-12-13 23:42:46
Subject: Re: Why vacuum?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-12-13 23:14:56
Subject: Idea for reducing planning time

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group