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: