From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: (A) native Windows port |
Date: | 2002-07-10 20:42:54 |
Message-ID: | 3D2C9C4E.A90C91AE@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 July 2002 03:24 am, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > The problem why this conflicts with these package managers is,
> > because they work package per package, instead of looking at the
> > big picture. Who said you can replace package A before running
> > the pre-upgrade script of dependent package B?
>
> How does this create the problem? The postgresql-server subpackages of two
> versions are 'Package A' above. There is no package B.
Someone was talking about doing a complete OS upgrade and updating
something the new PG release (that is scheduled for update later) needs
but what makes the current old release not functional any more. Maybe I
misunderstood something.
>
> Define 'the big picture' for all possible permutations of installed packages,
> please.
Got me on that. Sure, with all the possible permutations there is
allways an unsolveable dependency. What I think is, that knowing all
packages that are installed, that are to be added/removed/updated, it
would be possible to run pre-install, pre-update, pre-remove scripts for
all packages first. They have to clean up, save info and the like (dump
in our case, maybe install a new version of pg_dump runnable in the old
environment), but NOT disable functionality of any package. Second
install all binaries. Third run a second round of scripts for all
packages, finalizing the packages action.
>
> > Somehow this looks
> > like a foreign key violation to me. Oh, I forgot, RI constraints
> > are for documentation purposes only ... Greetings from the MySQL
> > documentation ;-)
>
> Is sarcasm really necessary?
Really really! I am dependent on it. If I don't get my daily dosis of
sarcasm, I become extremely ironic or sometimes cynic.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2002-07-10 20:52:56 | Re: update problem? |
Previous Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2002-07-10 20:38:45 | Re: Linux max on shared buffers? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Iavor Raytchev | 2002-07-10 21:15:59 | powered by |
Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-07-10 19:09:01 | Just added a second relay server ... |