Re: RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l) - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l)
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0107201825440.713-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: RPM source files should be in CVS (was Re: psql -l)  (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>)
List pgsql-general
Lamar Owen writes:

> The RPM additions are:
> 56      contrib-intarray.tar.gz
> 4       file-lists.tar.gz
> 8       migration-scripts.tar.gz

No tar or gz files in CVS.

> 4       postgresql-7.1.plperl.patch
> 4       postgresql-7.1.s390x.patch

No patches in CVS.

> 4       postgresql-bashprofile

Not sure what's in there exactly, so I can't comment.

> 4       postgresql-dump.1.gz

What's wrong with pg_dump?

> 8       postgresql.init

We already have one of those.

> 4       rh-pgdump.sh

See above.

> 8       rpm-pgsql-7.1.patch

See above.


See, if we want to get into the packaging business for real, then there
should not be any patches or extra programs or extra features distributed.
Fixes should be incorporated, not archived.

Then again, there are at least six other packaging efforts out there which
come with yet another set of patches and what not so I see this getting
messy.

--
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: How Postgresql Compares For Query And Load Operations
Next
From: Alex Pilosov
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Examples of using bytea type