Re: New repmgr packages - Mailing list pgsql-pkg-yum

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El 20/03/14 17:40, Devrim GÜNDÜZ escribió:
>
>> I did find a few things which I corrected differently from the
>> way it was on the .src.rpm, basically I removed the makefile
>> patch and set the PATHs accordingly in the spec file.
>
> Err, IIRC, we *should not* export PATH in the spec file, per
> packaging guidelines. That is why I add patches to each RPM.

I can't find anything about *not* exporting PATH in the packaging
guidelines (nor else where). Maybe you refer to export LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

In any case, I dislike both procedures.

Maybe the best way (and the more sane way) is to use alternatives to
have pg_config, and other postgres binaries that don't have
alternatives (I remember pg_controldata ATM) in the path? But that
should go to the postgres packages.

>> Another thing missing is the PGDG tag in Release.
>
> We add PGDG only to PostgreSQL itself. The rest does not belong to
> PGDG, so...

OK. I thought that the PDGD tag was related to who was distributing
the packages, that's why I thought it should be there as well. No problem.

>> I also saw some dependencies which were there before, but aren't
>>  anymore (rsync for example, and also openssh (which was
>> mistakenly openssl before))
>
> Ah.. Good catch. Created #164 for this:
> http://wiki.pgrpms.org/ticket/164

Thanks. Will follow from there.

>> I'm sending a patch for repmgr.spec with what I'm pointing out
>> here.
>>
>> I also changed a few things to make it look more like the
>> postgresql-X.Y.spec files.
>
> Do you mean these?
>
> -%global pgmajorversion 91 -%global pginstdir /usr/pgsql-9.1
> +%global pgmajorversion 9.1 +%define pgpackageversion 91 +%global
> pginstdir /usr/pgsql-%{pgmajorversion}
>
> If so, our version is exactly the same as in the other packages. We
> don't have pgpackageversion parameter anywhere. Am I missing
> something?

Maybe I am! ;)

I thought of splitting them in majorverion and packageversion, but
related to the postgres installation, so we can have, in the example
from above, 91 to use in the BuildRequires and Requires, and a 9.1 to
use in the pginstdir. Else you end up hardcoding them (or at least one
of them like it is now).

Now, I started thinking of something that maybe Christian or Jaime can
answer which is not related to packaging (at least not directly) but
has big influence in it: Do we need different repmgr compilations for
the different versions of PostgreSQL?

Cheers,

- --
Martín Marqués                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTK2L4AAoJEHsDtEgBAFTSw/MH/0uALSsEFJY7QymdB9xAbNG6
UhZt1grWsDBmdW+0diKuLO5Vg2CfPFUY9+mtqbgXyOGpTmD0t6Ul3e6JtXh9cvh1
laDFmzjASc81hnLrV62fsPNLkX1bUp8gpYtxlk02wtxWlK4fQeU/Tf94AFuf01pP
ShoAfNLtmq5k+9qxMKpo0YHAOHM5jlyjD+Nmagja85Zn4Ejo6x+8/TGQbraMSOC5
fHjtvbIrvSDxbXNF/sbrN76qnIDngf07a4u6ec1dg0YpAS0bPF3Zq165szsMVgo7
7Id6ChgTeocKHRbtWLnAQOQszUQ/L6wZ7m8I9tVfjYziF3e7QUJX3Zt0foEAPW4=
=NpaQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----