Re: 7.2 RPMs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Lamar Owen
Subject Re: 7.2 RPMs
Date
Msg-id 200109172048.QAA27486@www.wgcr.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7.2 RPMs  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Monday 17 September 2001 02:21 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Trond Eivind Glomsrød writes:
>>

> Given that pgtksh is rather small in size I don't know if that's worth the
> contortions.  However, note that pgaccess is still built if you turn on Tk
> but turn off %pgaccess.  (There was also a plan to make pgaccess use
> pgtksh, but it's not happening for 7.2.)

Built!=shipped in the RPMset.  Lots of things are built -- but if it's not in 
the %files list, it don't get packaged.

> Maybe they should be named to reflect these purposes?  Currently,
> postgresql-dump is just another spelling of pg_dump, and rh-pgdump.sh
> conveys the meaning of "Red Hat's (better/different) pg_dump".

I've already suggested a name that fits the purpose.

> * If the build system doesn't have a JDK, why do you need a JDBC driver?

To use a compiled bytecode java application built against our JDBC with a JRE?

> * There is currently no "official" source of PostgreSQL JDBC driver
> binaries.  So I don't know how you plan to obtain a precompiled jar
> without making it yourself.

Yes, we would have to build it now.  However, the question still looms: 
_which_ JDK should be used to build it for maximum JVM/JRE compatibility for 
the bytecode distribution?  I've asked this question before, and no consensus 
was reached.

> Well, do you have time to work on this and do you keep the RPM input files
> under version control somewhere, so I can send some incremental patches?

I will have time shortly. 

It has been discussed in the past on two separate occassions about putting 
the spec file into CVS at postgresql.org, but, again, no consensus was 
reached and no action was taken by core to implement that.  If I had to I 
could set up my own CVS repository -- but I haven't needed to as yet.

Send a patch to me and Trond against the last PGDG release specfile.  If you 
change the patchset, it needs to be included, as well as patches to any 
scripts distributed.

> The preliminary spec file patch is already the same size as the spec file.

???  That's pretty big.  E-mail me and Trond your changes, please.

We're getting ready to go into beta, and I was getting ready to ramp up to 
deal with 7.2beta RPMs anyway. This just quickens the issue.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [LARGE] select * from cursor foo
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: MySQL development MUST immdediately cease - Due to