| From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Sergio A(dot) Kessler" <sak(at)tribctas(dot)gba(dot)gov(dot)ar>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] rpms |
| Date: | 2000-03-02 16:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | 38BE98FF.EE9978A@alumni.caltech.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Why not just name the packages postgresql-server and postgresql-client and
> have no 'postgresql' as such. That should alleviate any confusion
> whatsoever.
That is possible. imho it is solving a "problem" with no clear benefit
in the end, so why bother? Just renaming packages doesn't, by name
alone, clarify which packages depend on others, doesn't clarify that
-server depends on -client, etc etc.
I'd recommend going with the current scheme for some more time, and
rather put the effort into clarifying in docs what the packages are
and which are useful for what. I'm pretty sure that Lamar has some of
this in place already, and we can see about integrating some of the
info for v7.0 docs...
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergio A. Kessler | 2000-03-03 12:39:32 | Re: [HACKERS] rpms |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak - Zakkr | 2000-03-02 16:32:51 | SPI and qCache and bug? |