An odd thing with postgresql92-debuginfo-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64.rpm

From: Sergey Konoplev <gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, andyone(at)fun-box(dot)ru, devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org
Subject: An odd thing with postgresql92-debuginfo-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64.rpm
Date: 2014-01-14 21:57:35
Message-ID: CAL_0b1uuW3HL_qRJRyFKn=gmgfVOauqc+osw-p0trvXOUF0KAQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Hi,

Here is https://gist.github.com/andyone/8423426 the spec file taken
from the official repo src package. You can see contrib, devel, docs,
libs, plperl, plpython, pltcl, server, test packages there under the
%files section, but there is no debuginfo package there.

The interesting thing is the result of rpm -qip for these 3 packages:

- http://yum.postgresql.org/srpms/9.2/redhat/rhel-6-x86_64/postgresql92-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.src.rpm
- http://yum.postgresql.org/9.2/redhat/rhel-latest-x86_64/postgresql92-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64.rpm
- http://yum.postgresql.org/9.2/redhat/rhel-latest-x86_64/postgresql92-debuginfo-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64.rpm.

You can find it here here https://gist.github.com/andyone/8423596.

All 3 packages signed with the same key (Key ID 1f16d2e1442df0f8).
Both postgresql92-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64.rpm and
postgresql92-debuginfo-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.x86_64.rpm refer to the same
Source RPM package postgresql92-9.2.6-1PGDG.rhel6.src.rpm. However, as
specified above, the .src. package has no any debuginfo sub-package.

So as a result postgresql92-debuginfo has not been updated to 9.2.6.

--
Kind regards,
Sergey Konoplev
PostgreSQL Consultant and DBA

http://www.linkedin.com/in/grayhemp
+1 (415) 867-9984, +7 (901) 903-0499, +7 (988) 888-1979
gray(dot)ru(at)gmail(dot)com

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-01-14 22:52:52 Re: [BUGS] Hot standby 9.2.6 -> 9.2.6 PANIC: WAL contains references to invalid pages
Previous Message M.Mamin 2014-01-14 16:51:28 BUG #8833: nested dynamic cursors may lead to type mismatch compared to the initial plan