From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | "Sergio A(dot) Kessler" <sak(at)tribctas(dot)gba(dot)gov(dot)ar> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] rpms |
Date: | 2000-03-01 16:33:52 |
Message-ID: | 38BD466F.A5492476@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >what is more clear/descriptive to you for a package that ONLY
> >contains PostgreSql libraries:
> >a) postgresql-libs.xxx.rpm (or maybe postgresql-clientlibs.xxx.rpm ?)
> >b) postgresql.xxx.rpm
> suposse a newbie looking for a RDBM is told to install PostgreSql,
> what you think will be the first package he will try ?
Well, the newbie would be best off if he installed every package ;)
Anyway, afaik most RPM distros of a product have one .rpm file which
has the name of the package, and then may have other .rpm files which
have qualifiers, like "-server". So in choosing which .rpm file will
be the base package, it seemed most appropriate that it be the
client-side stuff, as opposed to docs, or server (which btw can't
really be run on its own without the client stuff installed
*somewhere*), or something else.
I appreciate your points, but it isn't clear to me how to eliminate
*all* possibilities for confusion via RPM package names, so chose to
use names which give some appropriate functionality for each package.
Regards.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2000-03-01 16:35:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Where's the SQL3 spec? |
Previous Message | Oleg Broytmann | 2000-03-01 16:14:10 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL on Solaris/SPARC with gcc |