Re: Packaging - Packages names consistency (RPM) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Devrim Gündüz
Subject Re: Packaging - Packages names consistency (RPM)
Date
Msg-id 219E15F1-E51F-47B6-B51A-0606C2D6E290@gunduz.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Packaging - Packages names consistency (RPM)  (Bruno Lavoie <bl@brunol.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

RPM packager speaking: I agree that this is very annoying, and this is also in my todo list. Let me try to prioritize it.

Regards, Devrim

On 15 October 2020 17:23:33 GMT+03:00, Bruno Lavoie <bl@brunol.com> wrote:
Hi Hackers, 

First, thanks for working on such a great database! :)

We're currently trying to automate our PostgreSQL setup by using Ansible. We have an Ansible role for which we can specify supplemental extensions for which a deployment must install. 

To keep it simple across deployed version we simply ask to specify extension list, as simple as:
  • pgaudit
  • postgis
  • wal2json
  • ... and so on ...

In the installation steps, we simply install all of these packages and add the version to the name. But it appears that some package names are either:
  • <package>_<version>
  • <package><version>
So, it is impossible to simply ask the package/extension name and programmatically add the version using a common pattern. I think that if we use the underscore to specify the version, it should be the same across all versions.

Maybe I'm missing something
Thanks
Bruno Lavoie

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] We install pg_regress and isolationtester but not pg_isolation_regress