Hi,
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 18:03 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote:
> I'm not very involved on this and I might be missing some piece of
> information, but why does the the Debian packages have the pgdg tag on
> the name while the RHEL don't?
I don't know why Debian folks use it, but RPMs have never did it this
way. I personally would like to omit using PGDG for the software that is
not being developed by them.
> I personally think that we have to differentiate pgdg packages from
> others. Unless this is not at all pgdg, but a personal package from
> Devrim, which is also cool, but when multiple packages for the same
> source come up, there has to be a way to discriminate one from the
> other.
Well, none of these packages are Devrim's packages. These packages are
distributed through the official RPM repo, and I am not the only
maintainer right now.
Also, they are not PGDG, either, per above.
Which multiple packages are we talking about, BTW?
> But now that I think about it, and also talking to some of the
> packagers from Debian, we could just build one repmgr and place the
> binaries in /usr/bin/ (which is what Debian does).
>
> This would reduce tremendously things related to different versions of
> PostgreSQL in the spec file.
>
> Thoughts?
Debian packaging and our packaging are not identical to each other.
Also, if you look at the spec file, it is the repmgr that installs
itself under PostgreSQL binary directory. It uses PGXS for that.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
