Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout

From: "Steve Wolfe" <steve(at)iboats(dot)com>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Date: 2001-05-31 21:33:50
Message-ID: 014701c0ea19$660290a0$50824e40@iboats.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-ports

> On Thursday 31 May 2001 16:22, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > something else fills up /var, PG isn't hosed. And if PG fills up it's
> > partition, other services aren't hosed.
>
> Make a partition mounted on /var/lib/pgsql. :-)

Touche!

> > Now, play some villanous music, and enter RedHat wearing a black
cape,
> > with small, beedy eyes. They insist that an OS should not touch
> > /usr/local, and they're right about that. However, if you choose to
>
> Linux Standards Base and the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard sets that
policy,
> not Red Hat. And I happen to think it installs to the right place, IMHO.
:-)

I'm talking about a user installing software on his own. Does the LFS
and FHS still mandate it not go into /usr/local in that case?

> And Red Hat ain't no villain -- unless you're a BSD partisan who thinks
Red
> Hat is responsible for popularizing Linux beyond its worth (that,
> incidentally, is a friendly dig at scrappy.....)

That was purely for dramatic effect, I didn't mean that they were
actually villains. I believe that there are some investors that would
argue against you, from what I hear of the lawsuit, but I haven't
concerned myself with that enough to know the details.

> If you like Linux, you
> should absolutely adore Red Hat -- if nothing else, for payrolling Alan
Cox
> and the stable kernels.

I wasn't aware that they did - but for that, I do absolutely applaud
them. I do have a few things that concern me about their kernels, but
I'll leave that for a relevant forum.

> Running rpm -ql on the RPMset is too much of a hassle, right? Removing
all
> traces of the RPMset is easier than removing all traces of a from-source
> install.

Really?

Let's compare removing the RPM's:

#rpm --erase postgresql-devel-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-jdbc-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-odbc-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-perl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-python-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-server-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-tcl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-test-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase php-pgsql-3.0.15-2
#rpm --erase postgresql-perl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-python-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-server-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-tcl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql

To removing the installation from source:

rm -rf ~postgres/*

I think that the second is much easier, in my opinion.

> Although, as I _am_ mentioned as a 'Developer' on the globe, and the RPM
puts
> the files where I mean for them to go... well, you decide the worth of
that.
>
> And followup to the PORTS list, as this is a ports, not a general,
issue.

I'm sorry, I don't know how that ended up there. I'll fix it.

steve

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= 2001-05-31 22:42:14 Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Previous Message Ken Causey 2001-05-31 21:24:41 Re: PostgreSQL security concerns

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= 2001-05-31 22:42:14 Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2001-05-31 21:20:36 Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout