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

Re: Duration of beta period

From: Kevin <TenToThe8th(at)yahoo(dot)com>
To: Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop(at)range(dot)infoplease(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Duration of beta period
Date: 2002-02-26 04:54:53
Message-ID: 3C7B151D.7DB51193@yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Just for my own sanity, I agree that using the system packager is a good
idea.  Since I use Slackware, and finding a package for it is usually
difficult (I don't know if pgsql has one), I use checkinstall
(http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/)  It creates a system
package based on what 'make install' does. It can create Slackware
packges, RPMs and Debian packages.  Thus I can usually do 'cvs update &&
make && su -c checkinstall' without any probelms (usually because
sometimes you need a distclean/configure in there).  Of course running
out of CVS is probably not much better than the snapshots, but of course
how you get the source is up to you.

--Kevin

Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 15:39, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Karl DeBisschop writes:
> >
> > > It's one thing to as people to run a test. It's another thing still to
> > > ask them to run that test when the only readily available test method
> > > bypasses whatever administrative packaing policy is in place on those
> > > machines.
> >
> > It seems unlikely that many would want to install a development snapshot
> > as their main installation.
> 
> Depends what you mean by main installation. I have a few Redhat servers
> whose only reason for existing is to test software. So would I want it
> to be my main installation for any production-related purpose? No. But
> would I want to track PostgreSQL development on that server? Sure, why
> not? At least why not if I can use RPM to cleanly remove the software.
> 
> Our company policy is that wherever possible, the native package
> management tools should be used to install software on a machine,
> whether it's a development box or a production server. RPMs are the
> native packakging format for Redhat, so we hope to install software
> using RPM. I might add, particularly if it's not production software --
> since RPM then helps assure that everything that should be removed can
> be removed.
> 
> Now it is true that I can just install it to part of my home directory,
> but that's less than fun over NFS.
> 
> And the fact of the matter is, if the goal is to expand testing, which
> was what I was trying to comment on, you probably get alot of mileage in
> expanding that testing by making packages easy, RPMs, BSD packages,
> solaris packages , whatever. It's just a fact that there are people out
> there who have little interest in the guts of compilation, but still
> have the ability to install and burn in an alpha or beta release.
> 
> Again, just my 2 cents.
> 
> --
> Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop(at)alert(dot)infoplease(dot)com>
> The Learning Network / Reference
> www.learningnetwork.com / www.infoplease.com
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Janardhana ReddyDate: 2002-02-26 07:03:54
Subject: Re: WAL Performance Improvements
Previous:From: Darcy BuskermolenDate: 2002-02-26 04:45:24
Subject: COPY FROM is not 8bit clean

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