Re: [HACKERS] rpms

From: "Sergio A(dot) Kessler" <sak(at)tribctas(dot)gba(dot)gov(dot)ar>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] rpms
Date: 2000-03-03 12:39:32
Message-ID: SAK.2000.03.03.qobrtjjp@sergio
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> el día Thu, 02 Mar 2000
16:38:23 +0000, escribió:

>> Why not just name the packages postgresql-server and postgresql-client
[...]
>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.

sorry to be picky thomas, but if the name has almost no mean
(as you imply) then why not call the package "pirindonga" ?

anyway, is not a problem for =me=, I know now what the package
contains (but I've installed the postgres rpm believing I was
installing the server, so count on me as one damnified that
ignored that there must be a package named just postgresql).

one last thing, usually users don't look at the full description
of the package before installing it, they (and I) just do
rpm -Uvh xxxxx.rpm (usually the name is self descriptive)

sergio

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyle Bateman 2000-03-03 18:19:25 7.0beta bug (or feature)?
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2000-03-02 16:38:23 Re: [HACKERS] rpms