> it shouldn't be better to rename the package postgresql-xxx.rpm
> to postgresql-libs-xxx.rpm ??
> actually is quite confusing, because at first look it seems that
> this package is the real thing (then you discover that is not,
> that the package you really want is postgresql-server).
Actually, what you suggest was how the naming was in earlier RPMs.
However, I changed the naming convention since the fundamental
installation should require client-side code only, to talk to a remote
server. In cases where Postgres is deployed on many machines, only one
or a few will have the server installed, while all machines will get
the client packages.
Regards.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
