Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Steve Wolfe
Subject Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Date
Msg-id 014701c0ea19$660290a0$50824e40@iboats.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout  (Gerald Gutierrez <gml1@coldresist.com>)
Responses Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout  (teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød))
Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout  (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>)
List pgsql-general
> On Thursday 31 May 2001 16:22, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > something else fills up /var, PG isn't hosed.  And if PG fills up it's
> > partition, other services aren't hosed.
>
> Make a partition mounted on /var/lib/pgsql. :-)

  Touche!

> >     Now, play some villanous music, and enter RedHat wearing a black
cape,
> > with small, beedy eyes.  They insist that an OS should not touch
> > /usr/local, and they're right about that.  However, if you choose to
>
> Linux Standards Base and the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard sets that
policy,
> not Red Hat. And I happen to think it installs to the right place, IMHO.
:-)

  I'm talking about a user installing software on his own.  Does the LFS
and FHS still mandate it not go into /usr/local in that case?

> And Red Hat ain't no villain -- unless you're a BSD partisan who thinks
Red
> Hat is responsible for popularizing Linux beyond its worth (that,
> incidentally, is a friendly dig at scrappy.....)

  That was purely for dramatic effect, I didn't mean that they were
actually villains.   I believe that there are some investors that would
argue against you, from what I hear of the lawsuit, but I haven't
concerned myself with that enough to know the details.

> If you like Linux, you
> should absolutely adore Red Hat -- if nothing else, for payrolling Alan
Cox
> and the stable kernels.

  I wasn't aware that they did - but for that, I do absolutely applaud
them.  I do have a few things that concern me about their kernels, but
I'll leave that for a relevant forum.

> Running rpm -ql on the RPMset is too much of a hassle, right? Removing
all
> traces of the RPMset is easier than removing all traces of a from-source
> install.

   Really?

Let's compare removing the RPM's:

#rpm --erase postgresql-devel-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-jdbc-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-odbc-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-perl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-python-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-server-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-tcl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-test-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase php-pgsql-3.0.15-2
#rpm --erase postgresql-perl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-python-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-server-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql-tcl-6.5.3-6
#rpm --erase postgresql

  To removing the installation from source:

rm -rf ~postgres/*

  I think that the second is much easier, in my opinion.

> Although, as I _am_ mentioned as a 'Developer' on the globe, and the RPM
puts
> the files where I mean for them to go... well, you decide the worth of
that.
>
> And followup to the PORTS list, as this is a ports, not a general,
issue.

  I'm sorry, I don't know how that ended up there.  I'll fix it.

steve



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Next
From: teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød)
Date:
Subject: Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout