Re: RPM changes for 7.1.

From: Karl DeBisschop <karl(at)debisschop(dot)net>
To:
Cc: pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RPM changes for 7.1.
Date: 2000-12-13 23:21:24
Message-ID: 3A380474.998BE199@debisschop.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Similarly, I find it not useful that PL/Perl and thrown together with
> Pg.pm, and PL/Tcl is thrown together with pgtclsh. Maybe you want to make
> a separate postgresql-server-{perl,tcl} package. I think you already
> suggested that.

I agree -- I use DBD, and thus do not feel the need for Pg.pm, but I do use
PL/Perl.

> > However, I am not leaning towards a separate docs subpackage -- it was
> > suggested to me, and I placed it on my list for discussion.
>
> I don't think this is a bad idea. Maybe people only want to install the
> docs once in their network and make them available via a web server. I
> did it that way.

I have created docs packages in the past. Until I was reminded of the
--excludedocs option for rpm. Actually, I may have been one who suggested a
docs package for PostgreSQL)

> > Making the postgresql package depend upon the postgresql-libs package is
> > easy enough. That means you do have at leats two packages to install.
>
> (On a quiet night you can hear the Debian users laughing...)
>
> > One example of a split that seems to work well (AFAIK) is the amanda
> > network backup tool.
>
> > The main package contains files common to the client and server.
>
> In PostgreSQL there are, strictly speaking, no files in common to client
> and server.
>
> Two more points:
>
> * createlang, droplang, and pg_id should be in the server package.
>
> * Maybe you want to create a postgresql-server-devel package with the
> backend header files. These are needed rather seldom.

Would we have postgresql-server-devel and postgresql-clients-devel?
This splits things up rather finely, but it seems consistent, and I
tend to like that -- overall the way Lamar is going sounds very good
to me. And supports a point from an old discussion -- no matter how
good the developers are (and they are great) -- it really helps to
have a good packager as well.

--
Karl DeBisschop kdebisschop(at)alert(dot)infoplease(dot)com
Learning Network/Information Please http://www.infoplease.com
Netsaint Plugin Developer kdebisschop(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alfred Perlstein 2000-12-13 23:42:46 Re: Why vacuum?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-12-13 23:14:56 Idea for reducing planning time

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Korshunov Ilya 2000-12-14 08:24:07
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2000-12-13 20:05:03 Re: RPM changes for 7.1.