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

Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>,Steve Bergman <steve(at)rueb(dot)com>,"Hackers (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Date: 2004-08-18 16:43:20
Message-ID: 41238728.3090909@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-generalpgsql-hackers

Joe Conway wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Well, *Marc* is working on including less stuff; the rest of us don't
>> necessarily agree.  In particular I've got to re-incorporate any major
>> pieces that get removed from the core distribution, since people expect
>> to find those in the RPM set.  (In principle I suppose they could be
>> handled as independent packages with independent specfiles, but so far
>> the path of least resistance has been to keep 'em bundled together.)
>>
>
> On that, note that I specifically removed jdbc and tcl options from 
> the spec file because the 8.0.0 release notes said they were removed 
> from the distribution. I suppose at lease jdbc should be put back? It 
> didn't seem right to include the 7.4 jdbc jars in the 8.0 source rpm, 
> and I wasn't sure where to get the equivalent of 8.0.0beta1 jdbc jar 
> files (if such a thing even exists).
>
>

ISTM we need an S/RPM project on pgfoundry, just like the Windows 
installer project. (and maybe a .deb and a Solaris .pkg project too).

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2004-08-18 16:46:24
Subject: Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-08-18 16:38:34
Subject: Re: 7.4.3 & 8.0.0beta1 + Solaris 9: default pg_hba.conf breaks

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Manfred SpraulDate: 2004-08-18 16:52:42
Subject: Re: NOT LOGGED options (was Point in Time Recovery )
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-18 16:33:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2004-08-18 17:05:39
Subject: Re: Autoincremental value
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-08-18 16:33:24
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?

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