Steve Wolfe wrote:
> > Then upgrade the RPM's. It isn't hard.
> OK, here's a situation. One of the programmers at your company runs the
> disk out of space. You're going to go bonk him on the head, but first,
> there are more pressing matters. PostgreSQL 6.5 has horked up the tables,
> and needs to be fixed. 7.0 is released, which has a fix for the problem.
Not a good example, but I understand your comparison.
> Are you going to sit around waiting for RPM's, while your tables are all
> horked up, and the programming department is breathing down your neck
> because they can't get work done?
Actually, since I'm the RPM maintainer, I'll build a set for the new
version (which I would have been tracking since the first beta) the hour
it is released. That is if I'm online when the release occurs. But,
then again, I'll have already built RPM's for the beta releases.
It's this very problem that got me in this business of maintaining the
RPM's in the first place over a year ago. Scratch that itch.....
> > If you're going to install from source on a RedHat machine, it is simply
> > prudent practice, regardless of the package, to make sure the RPM
> > version is not already installed.
>
> I agree.
>
> > And, the fact of the matter is that there are likely far more PostgreSQL
> > installations from RPM than from source.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of that argument. Popularity does not make
> correctness. If I'm just being extremely dense about that sentence, feel
> free to let me know.
The relevance is that most who use it don't really care where the stuff
is. They just want to upgrade.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
