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

Re: [RPM] Suggestion for postgresql rpm spec file

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: dave(at)moby5(dot)fremenworks(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [RPM] Suggestion for postgresql rpm spec file
Date: 2002-03-07 13:42:03
Message-ID: 3C876E2B.B37CA239@fourpalms.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-ports
...
> It seems like this should be a standard feature of most spec files, much
> like the 'DESTDIR' feature of a well written Makefile.  It allows lots
> of needed flexibility with a very small cost.

But only if it works for a particular application. I'm not *certain*
that the relocatable feature of RPM can be used for PostgreSQL, though
if it can I agree it would be desirable.

One of the issues is this: for some applications, parameters set during
the build process preclude their being relocated later on. For example,
PGDATA is set to a default value during the configure step. If that
parameter is required to have the correct value for applications to run,
then the application can not be relocated in the RPM sense.

We might agree that PGDATA is *not* required to match what was set at
build time, but we would need to inventory the other dependencies to
make sure that some other parameter is not constraining us. 

And then someone would need to test it out, though it sounds like you
actually have tested this feature with one of your installations? Have
you done so with all of the PostgreSQL RPMs?

                       - Thomas

In response to

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: GBDate: 2002-03-08 15:38:37
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 7.2 on Suse 7.2
Previous:From: de Penning, LeoDate: 2002-03-06 15:43:52
Subject: Is PostgreSQL supported on OpenVMS?

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