Thread: RPM RH9.0 conflict with unixODBC
This is what I got installing the RPM for 9.0: file /usr/include/sqltypes.h from install of postgresql-devel-7.4-0.3PGDG conflicts with file from package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6 BTW I think that something is wrong with the file size between two distributions: this are the rpm for 9.0: 3768418 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 2660177 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-contrib-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 2030011 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-devel-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 1185543 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-docs-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 948473 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-jdbc-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 760377 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-libs-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 660158 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-pl-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 98019 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-python-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 9864477 Nov 24 10:06 postgresql-server-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 158713 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-tcl-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 1053201 Nov 24 10:05 postgresql-test-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm and this for rhas-2.1: 2080872 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 487992 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-contrib-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 674440 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-devel-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 1126355 Nov 24 10:09 postgresql-docs-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 948208 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-jdbc-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 157377 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-libs-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 248003 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-pl-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 43065 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-python-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 3127278 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-server-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 28270 Nov 24 10:09 postgresql-tcl-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm 1048176 Nov 24 10:09 postgresql-test-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm how you can see the sizes are completely different. Am I missing something ? Regards Gaetano Mendola
On Monday 24 November 2003 03:05 pm, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > This is what I got installing the RPM for 9.0: > file /usr/include/sqltypes.h from install of > postgresql-devel-7.4-0.3PGDG conflicts with file from package > unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6 Namespace collision, I guess. Makes me wonder about popping all those devel files in /usr/include; I'll have to research. I can confirm that the conflict exists in Fedora Core; I don't typically have unixODBC-devel installed on my build boxes. > BTW I think that something is wrong with the file size > between two distributions: > this are the rpm for 9.0: > 3768418 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm > and this for rhas-2.1: > 2080872 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm > how you can see the sizes are completely different. > Am I missing something ? Compiler version and flags. Although that is a substantial difference. The rhas-2.1 compiler is the Red Hat gcc 2.96, and the RH9 compiler is gcc 3. Apparently gcc 3 generates large code. Sander, can you verify this, since you built both of these? -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
Hi, > > this are the rpm for 9.0: > > 3768418 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm > > > and this for rhas-2.1: > > 2080872 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm > > > how you can see the sizes are completely different. > > Am I missing something ? > > Compiler version and flags. Although that is a substantial difference. The > rhas-2.1 compiler is the Red Hat gcc 2.96, and the RH9 compiler is gcc 3. > Apparently gcc 3 generates large code. Sander, can you verify this, since > you built both of these? The file sizes are correct. I can't explain the huge difference though... They both contain the same files, and are built from the same specfile. The only difference between the build commands is that the RedHat 9 RPMs are built with --define 'build89 1', and the RHEL RPMs are built with --define 'build7x 1' and --define 'plperl 0'. The exclusion of plperl shouldn't make a difference in this RPM, only in the postgresql-pl RPM... In short: both filesizes are correct, and I can't explain it :( Sander.
Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > >>>this are the rpm for 9.0: >>>3768418 Nov 24 10:07 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm >> >>>and this for rhas-2.1: >>>2080872 Nov 24 10:08 postgresql-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm >> >>>how you can see the sizes are completely different. >>>Am I missing something ? >> >>Compiler version and flags. Although that is a substantial difference. > > The > >>rhas-2.1 compiler is the Red Hat gcc 2.96, and the RH9 compiler is gcc 3. >>Apparently gcc 3 generates large code. Sander, can you verify this, since >>you built both of these? > > > The file sizes are correct. I can't explain the huge difference though... > They both contain the same files, and are built from the same specfile. The > only difference between the build commands is that the RedHat 9 RPMs are > built with --define 'build89 1', and the RHEL RPMs are built with --define > 'build7x 1' and --define 'plperl 0'. The exclusion of plperl shouldn't make > a difference in this RPM, only in the postgresql-pl RPM... > > In short: both filesizes are correct, and I can't explain it :( > Sander. However 6MB of difference for postgresql-server-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm and 2.2 MB for postgresql-contrib-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm are too much ! I'd like to have time to dig on it... Regards Gaetano Mendola
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:39, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Sander Steffann wrote:
...
> > In short: both filesizes are correct, and I can't explain it :(
> > Sander.
>
> However 6MB of difference for postgresql-server-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm
> and 2.2 MB for postgresql-contrib-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm
> are too much !
If you do a 'file' command on the executables does one set show
up stripped while the other doesn't. The sizes of individual
files are consistent with that difference (roughly).
If they are the same, and 'ldd' shows the same set of shared
libraries loaded, then look at the sizes of the non-shared
libraries used on the two OS versions.
--
Steve Wampler -- swampler@noao.edu
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?
Steve Wampler wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 12:39, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
>>Sander Steffann wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>In short: both filesizes are correct, and I can't explain it :(
>>>Sander.
>>
>>However 6MB of difference for postgresql-server-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm
>>and 2.2 MB for postgresql-contrib-7.4-0.3PGDG.i386.rpm
>>are too much !
>
>
> If you do a 'file' command on the executables does one set show
> up stripped while the other doesn't. The sizes of individual
> files are consistent with that difference (roughly).
>
> If they are the same, and 'ldd' shows the same set of shared
> libraries loaded, then look at the sizes of the non-shared
> libraries used on the two OS versions.
This mean that file for 9.0 must be stripped ?
RHAS-2.1:
tsearch2.so 152888 bytes
RH9.0:
tsearch2.so 951236 bytes
compiling this file from a postgresql-7.4.tar.gz
on a RH9.0 I obtain:
libtsearch2.so.0.0 158565 bytes
that is most like a RHAS2.1 size.
RH9.0 where I compiled the tar.gz:
ldd libtsearch2.so.0.0
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x4003d000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
RH9.0:
ldd tsearch2.so
libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x40040000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x42000000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
RHAS2.1:
ldd tsearch2.so
libm.so.6 => /lib/i686/libm.so.6 (0x4002c000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/libc.so.6 (0x4004f000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
RHAS-2.1:
> gdb tsearch2.so
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (5.3post-0.20021129.18rh)
Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain
conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i386-redhat-linux-gnu"...(no debugging
symbols found)...
RH9.0:
> gdb tsearch2.so
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (5.3post-0.20021129.18rh)
Copyright 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain
conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "i386-redhat-linux-gnu"...
note that there is no warning about the debugging symbols :-(
is strange because the gdb on libtsearch2.so.0.0 ( 158565 bytes )
don't complain neather about the debugging symbols...
Am I crazy ?
Regards
Gateano Mendola
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 03:38 pm, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > RHAS-2.1: > tsearch2.so 152888 bytes > RH9.0: > tsearch2.so 951236 bytes FWIW, on Fedora Core: [lowen@localhost pgsql]$ ls -l tsearch2.so -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 141348 Nov 21 21:53 tsearch2.so [lowen@localhost pgsql]$ Something is certainly unusual here. Sander, can you rebuild the RH9 set and see why it is so large? For some reason, I missed how many places were in there, and missed the fact that there were multiple megabytes difference. Debugging symbols or no, this is big. And as Fedora Core uses gcc 3, that doesn't explain it. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
Hi, > Something is certainly unusual here. Sander, can you rebuild the RH9 set and > see why it is so large? For some reason, I missed how many places were in > there, and missed the fact that there were multiple megabytes difference. > Debugging symbols or no, this is big. The difference in size is 100% related to the stripped/unstripped binaries. These are the RH9 files in /usr/bin as they are in the RPM: -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 208173 Nov 23 01:40 clusterdb -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 208816 Nov 23 01:40 createdb -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 258577 Nov 23 01:40 createlang -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 208161 Nov 23 01:40 createuser -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 205248 Nov 23 01:40 dropdb -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 257890 Nov 23 01:40 droplang -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 205322 Nov 23 01:40 dropuser -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 739671 Nov 23 01:40 pg_dump -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 176362 Nov 23 01:40 pg_dumpall -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 32745 Nov 23 01:41 pg_encoding -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 36674 Nov 23 01:40 pg_id -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 539901 Nov 23 01:40 pg_restore -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 908106 Nov 23 01:40 psql -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 143996 Nov 23 01:40 vacuumdb And after stripping them: -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 22936 Nov 26 01:15 clusterdb -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 22944 Nov 26 01:15 createdb -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 28160 Nov 26 01:15 createlang -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 23000 Nov 26 01:15 createuser -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 20772 Nov 26 01:15 dropdb -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 27564 Nov 26 01:15 droplang -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 20836 Nov 26 01:15 dropuser -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 160776 Nov 26 01:15 pg_dump -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 28824 Nov 26 01:15 pg_dumpall -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 4464 Nov 26 01:15 pg_encoding -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 4592 Nov 26 01:15 pg_id -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 77120 Nov 26 01:15 pg_restore -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 152344 Nov 26 01:15 psql -rwxr-xr-x 1 planeet sander 13012 Nov 26 01:15 vacuumdb This makes the difference between 4.1M (before) and 644K (after). I just noticed that I disabled the debug-package that RH9 builds by default. That very probably causes this difference. I will rebuild the RPMs with the debug-package enabled to see what happens. Sander.
Hi, It turns out that preventing RH9 from building the debuginfo package also prevented it from stripping the binaries. This was what caused the big difference in filesize. I have rebuilt the RPMs for RH9 and put them on http://opensource.nederland.net/. I had to make a small modification to the specfile (again) because it seems that macro's work differently for each RPM / RedHat version. There have been no other changes to the sources or specfile, so the end-result is the same. Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! Sander.
Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi, > > It turns out that preventing RH9 from building the debuginfo package also > prevented it from stripping the binaries. This was what caused the big > difference in filesize. I have rebuilt the RPMs for RH9 and put them on > http://opensource.nederland.net/. > > I had to make a small modification to the specfile (again) because it seems > that macro's work differently for each RPM / RedHat version. There have been > no other changes to the sources or specfile, so the end-result is the same. > > Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! > Sander. Is this also related to the fact that gdb on libraries of RH9.0 don't complain about the debugging info ? Regards Gaetano Mendola
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 07:56 pm, Sander Steffann wrote: > It turns out that preventing RH9 from building the debuginfo package also > prevented it from stripping the binaries. Ah, ok. > This was what caused the big > difference in filesize. I have rebuilt the RPMs for RH9 and put them on > http://opensource.nederland.net/. > I had to make a small modification to the specfile (again) because it seems > that macro's work differently for each RPM / RedHat version. There have > been no other changes to the sources or specfile, so the end-result is the > same. Ooo... yet more macro differences. Saturday I'll need to put some time into understanding how to make a singular set... > Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! > Sander. Not a big problem. I'll pull down the new packages tomorrow afternoon; I was going to be off, but will have to come in for a couple of hours. So I'll transfer them across then. Many thanks! -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 07:22 pm, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > Sander Steffann wrote: > > Sorry for the inconvenience I caused by disabling the debuginfo package! > > Sander. > Is this also related to the fact that gdb on libraries of RH9.0 don't > complain about the debugging info ? I would think so. But with Sander confirming this by file sizes, we know pretty much for certain. Debugging info really jacks up the file size. It didn't use to be quite that big of a difference, back when I built the beta packages (of which we didn't have any this cycle) with debug info turned on, and unstripped. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu