Thread: Trouble with RPM
Hi All, I'm trying to get postgresql running on my Redhat 6.2 system. I downloaded the 7.0.2 binary RPM from the postgresql site, but after installing the package, the postmaster command file is nowhere to be found. When I query the RPM package itself, the file is not in the package; I only see postmaster.html docs that are to be placed in the /usr/doc directory. Without the postmaster command, I cannot even start the database manager. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance, Larry Rogers
Hi, Please don't use RPM if you don't want to have a Win$ based install. It's remember me a very old question: Where are the DLL ? The better way is to get the tarball and do a fresh compilation, you will learn more about postgres (see the INSTALL file and other documentation). And then all your files will go in /usr/local/pgsql by default ! Note: I use rh6.2 :-) Larry Rogers wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm trying to get postgresql running on my Redhat 6.2 system. > > I downloaded the 7.0.2 binary RPM from the postgresql site, but after installing > the package, the postmaster command file is nowhere to be found. When I query > the RPM package itself, the file is not in the package; I only see > postmaster.html docs that are to be placed in the /usr/doc directory. > > Without the postmaster command, I cannot even start the database manager. Am I > missing something? > > Thanks in advance, > > Larry Rogers
Excactly what packages have you installed? I installed the "postgresql-7.0-1.i386.rpm" and nothing appeard in Linuxconf (I use it to start Postgres). Then I installed "postgresql-server-7.0-1.i386.rpm" and then it worked :-) Larry Rogers wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm trying to get postgresql running on my Redhat 6.2 system. > > I downloaded the 7.0.2 binary RPM from the postgresql site, but after installing > the package, the postmaster command file is nowhere to be found. When I query > the RPM package itself, the file is not in the package; I only see > postmaster.html docs that are to be placed in the /usr/doc directory. > > Without the postmaster command, I cannot even start the database manager. Am I > missing something? > > Thanks in advance, > > Larry Rogers
Gilles DAROLD wrote: > Please don't use RPM if you don't want to have a Win$ based install. > It's remember me a very old question: Where are the DLL ? > The better way is to get the tarball and do a fresh compilation, you will > learn more about postgres (see the INSTALL file and other documentation). > And then all your files will go in /usr/local/pgsql by default ! You know, it's responses like this that make me think... why do I pour so much energy in trying to get the RPM's right? And then I remember all those folks that have thanked me for the good RPMs. RPMs are in no way comparable to Win. But, then again, if you want to really learn X, or the linux kernel, you should really go do the 'roll-your-own-distribution' thing -- not use RedHat at all. The RPM's have been built to simply and easily allow things that are not easily possible with the standard tarball installation -- such as not having the postmaster/backend on a client-only system. Or picking and choosing amongst the clients. Or not having to have the source taking up space after the system is built. Some folks actually want to run PostgreSQL on secure boxen that won't even have a compiler installed -- such as my production database server. And, if you build from source, and put everything in /usr/local/pgsql, you have all that added work to get everything working right. If you just simply want to _use_ PostgreSQL to get some work done, then there is nothing at all wrong with using the RPM set. To answer the original question, refer to the /usr/doc/postgresql-7.0.2/README.rpm file -- then install postgresql-server RPM. As to 'DLL Hell' -- thanks to the way rpm works, you are never in danger of this -- rpm -ql package-name gives you a complete list of files in a particular rpm. The companion 'rpm -qf /some/file/some/where' gives you the inverse, showing what package a file belongs to. Of course, you do need a recent RedHat distribution -- but you need that anyway. (I am working on getting the source RPM to build on other distributions/OS's....) Comparing the RPM installation to Win is a low blow -- so, yes, it does strike a nerve. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
BTW, Lamar, thanks for the RPMs. Fine job. Lamar Owen wrote: > > Gilles DAROLD wrote: > > Please don't use RPM if you don't want to have a Win$ based install. > > It's remember me a very old question: Where are the DLL ? > > > The better way is to get the tarball and do a fresh compilation, you will > > learn more about postgres (see the INSTALL file and other documentation). > > And then all your files will go in /usr/local/pgsql by default ! > > You know, it's responses like this that make me think... why do I pour > so much energy in trying to get the RPM's right? And then I remember > all those folks that have thanked me for the good RPMs. > > RPMs are in no way comparable to Win. But, then again, if you want to > really learn X, or the linux kernel, you should really go do the > 'roll-your-own-distribution' thing -- not use RedHat at all. > > The RPM's have been built to simply and easily allow things that are not > easily possible with the standard tarball installation -- such as not > having the postmaster/backend on a client-only system. Or picking and > choosing amongst the clients. Or not having to have the source taking > up space after the system is built. Some folks actually want to run > PostgreSQL on secure boxen that won't even have a compiler installed -- > such as my production database server. > > And, if you build from source, and put everything in /usr/local/pgsql, > you have all that added work to get everything working right. If you > just simply want to _use_ PostgreSQL to get some work done, then there > is nothing at all wrong with using the RPM set. > > To answer the original question, refer to the > /usr/doc/postgresql-7.0.2/README.rpm file -- then install > postgresql-server RPM. > > As to 'DLL Hell' -- thanks to the way rpm works, you are never in danger > of this -- rpm -ql package-name gives you a complete list of files in a > particular rpm. The companion 'rpm -qf /some/file/some/where' gives you > the inverse, showing what package a file belongs to. Of course, you do > need a recent RedHat distribution -- but you need that anyway. (I am > working on getting the source RPM to build on other > distributions/OS's....) > > Comparing the RPM installation to Win is a low blow -- so, yes, it does > strike a nerve. > > -- > Lamar Owen > WGCR Internet Radio > 1 Peter 4:11
Gilles DAROLD <gilles@darold.net> writes: > Hi, > > Please don't use RPM if you don't want to have a Win$ based install. > It's remember me a very old question: Where are the DLL ? > > The better way is to get the tarball and do a fresh compilation, you will > learn more about postgres (see the INSTALL file and other documentation). > And then all your files will go in /usr/local/pgsql by default ! > > Note: I use rh6.2 :-) Except that with tarball, you have a much higher chance of not compiling, misconfiguring, or botching the install (I dont't mean postgress specifically here.) And when this happens to your friends and coworkers, and you are the local Linux expert, who do you think will be doing the 'learning'? :-) <snip> -- Prasanth Kumar kumar1@home.com
* Prasanth A. Kumar <kumar1@home.com> [000717 08:49] wrote: > Gilles DAROLD <gilles@darold.net> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Please don't use RPM if you don't want to have a Win$ based install. > > It's remember me a very old question: Where are the DLL ? > > > > The better way is to get the tarball and do a fresh compilation, you will > > learn more about postgres (see the INSTALL file and other documentation). > > And then all your files will go in /usr/local/pgsql by default ! > > > > Note: I use rh6.2 :-) > > Except that with tarball, you have a much higher chance of not > compiling, misconfiguring, or botching the install (I dont't mean > postgress specifically here.) And when this happens to your friends > and coworkers, and you are the local Linux expert, who do you think > will be doing the 'learning'? :-) Depends on the size of your LART. :) -Alfred
Lamar Owen wrote: > > The better way is to get the tarball and do a fresh compilation, you will > > learn more about postgres (see the INSTALL file and other documentation). > > And then all your files will go in /usr/local/pgsql by default ! > > You know, it's responses like this that make me think... why do I pour > so much energy in trying to get the RPM's right? And then I remember > all those folks that have thanked me for the good RPMs. Sorry but I don't want to minimate your well done work. I just want to say that installing some software distribution (postgresql or others) need to take a look of what it is, what there are and where do it goes. If you don't know about rpm, typing rpm -i package.rpm it's very simple and powerfull but it's just like installing binaries and no matter if it really works or not. Wait and see ! > RPMs are in no way comparable to Win. But, then again, if you want to > really learn X, or the linux kernel, you should really go do the > 'roll-your-own-distribution' thing -- not use RedHat at all. I'm agree with you, I use RedHat because it's easy to install and I don't want to spend all my time to intall. Why not at all ? I just do rpm -e and reinstall Postresql with the last version with all customization needed. > The RPM's have been built to simply and easily allow things that are not > easily possible with the standard tarball installation -- such as not > having the postmaster/backend on a client-only system. Or picking and > choosing amongst the clients. Or not having to have the source taking > up space after the system is built. Some folks actually want to run > PostgreSQL on secure boxen that won't even have a compiler installed -- > such as my production database server. Agree, this is the power of rpms... I just asked a question about rpm because in few years perhaps no one will read the readme and install files which are certainly plain of important informations. But perhaps we'll never need them anymore. > And, if you build from source, and put everything in /usr/local/pgsql, > you have all that added work to get everything working right. If you > just simply want to _use_ PostgreSQL to get some work done, then there > is nothing at all wrong with using the RPM set. Yes, where are the files ? > As to 'DLL Hell' -- thanks to the way rpm works, you are never in danger > of this -- rpm -ql package-name gives you a complete list of files in a > particular rpm. The companion 'rpm -qf /some/file/some/where' gives you > the inverse, showing what package a file belongs to. Of course, you do > need a recent RedHat distribution -- but you need that anyway. (I am > working on getting the source RPM to build on other > distributions/OS's....) > > Comparing the RPM installation to Win is a low blow -- so, yes, it does > strike a nerve. Sorry for your nerve this was just and informative reflexion not a comparison otherwise I promise you I'll never use rh anymore :-) I understand that my message heart you a little, I don't like such of words on my work... I like rpm, especialy for system update. Congratulation ! Gilles
DAROLD Gilles wrote: > Yes, where are the files ? > > of this -- rpm -ql package-name gives you a complete list of files in a > > particular rpm. The companion 'rpm -qf /some/file/some/where' gives you Or, for laughs: rpm -qa|grep ^postgresql|xargs -n 1 rpm -ql This will give you a listing of all files on your system that belong to any of the postgresql rpms. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
>You know, it's responses like this that make me think... why do I pour >so much energy in trying to get the RPM's right? And then I remember >all those folks that have thanked me for the good RPMs. Thank you for the good RPMs :) >The RPM's have been built to simply and easily allow things that are not >easily possible with the standard tarball installation -- such as not >having the postmaster/backend on a client-only system. Or picking and >choosing amongst the clients. Or not having to have the source taking >up space after the system is built. Some folks actually want to run >PostgreSQL on secure boxen that won't even have a compiler installed -- >such as my production database server. Don't forget upgrades, as well as easily getting a php-postgres.rpm and such. These are the things I appreciate most - and of course, uninstallation is cool too, if that time ever comes :) >To answer the original question, refer to the >/usr/doc/postgresql-7.0.2/README.rpm file -- then install >postgresql-server RPM. My only complaint is that the packages are a little *too* seperated. I think they only need a little better documentation on what they each are, actually. But I got them to work anyway, thanks again! >As to 'DLL Hell' -- thanks to the way rpm works, you are never in danger >of this -- rpm -ql package-name gives you a complete list of files in a >particular rpm. The companion 'rpm -qf /some/file/some/where' gives you >the inverse, showing what package a file belongs to. Of course, you do >need a recent RedHat distribution -- but you need that anyway. (I am >working on getting the source RPM to build on other >distributions/OS's....) Any chance of *wince* getting an RPM for SCO? *shudder* >Comparing the RPM installation to Win is a low blow -- so, yes, it does >strike a nerve. Low blow is quite the understatement. Rob Nelson rdnelson@co.centre.pa.us