Thread: I can't upgrade to PostgreSQL 7.4 in RedHat 9.0
Hello list This is my situation: My box: Pentium III, Red Hat 9.0 I was working fine with PostgreSQL 7.3.2. Recently I decided to upgrade it to PostgreSQL 7.4 installing the twelve rpms I downloaded from ftp://ftp15.us.postgresql.org/binar...dhat/refhat-9/. I followed the standar command to upgrade rpm packages but the installation failed due to conflicts with the installed package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6. This is the output I got from the system: ------------------------------------------- #rpm -Uvh postgresql*7.4-0.5PGDG.i386.rpm Preparing... ########################[100%] file /usr/include/sqltypes.h from install of postgresql-devel-7.4-0.5PGDG conflicts with file from package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6 ---------------------------------------------- At first solution I tried to uninstall unixODBC (composed by two rpms: unixODBC-2.2.3-06 and unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6) but failed due to dependence with the package libodbc++-0.2.2pre4-12 ( an ODBC class library that emulates the JBBC interface). So, I change my mind because I fear to enter in an endless upgrading. My questions are: a)What must I do to upgrade from PostgreSQL 7.3.2 I to PostgreSQL 7.4 in Red Hat 9.0?. b) If it is neccesary to upgrade the package unixODBC, where I can get the rpm and what is the correct version.? I really hope someone can give me a hand.
On Sunday 25 January 2004 03:38, Manuel Tejada wrote: > Hello list > > This is my situation: > > My box: Pentium III, Red Hat 9.0 > > I was working fine with PostgreSQL 7.3.2. > Recently I decided to upgrade it to PostgreSQL 7.4 installing the twelve > rpms I downloaded from > ftp://ftp15.us.postgresql.org/binar...dhat/refhat-9/. > > I followed the standar command to upgrade rpm packages but the installation > failed due to conflicts with the installed package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6. > > This is the output I got from the system: > ------------------------------------------- > #rpm -Uvh postgresql*7.4-0.5PGDG.i386.rpm > Preparing... ########################[100%] > file /usr/include/sqltypes.h from install of postgresql-devel-7.4-0.5PGDG > conflicts with file from package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6 > ---------------------------------------------- Check the mailing-list archives. for references to this file (sqltypes.h) - this problem cropped up with the RPMs for 7.4.0 (a clash with another package). Incidentally, shouldn't you be using 7.4.1? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
On Saturday 24 January 2004 10:38 pm, Manuel Tejada wrote: > I followed the standar command to upgrade rpm packages but the installation > failed due to conflicts with the installed package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6. Use the 7.4.1 RPMs. The conflict is fixed there, since it is an upstream (that is, not an RPM) issue. The short of it was that the ECPG headers and the unixODBC headers both thought they should be in the same place with the same file name. The 7.4.1 install (tarball) patched this to put the ECPG headers in a subdirectory, allowing unixODBC to have the name. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
Where I can get the rpms for PostgreSQL 7.4.1? The ftp://ftp15.us.postgresql.org/binary/v7.4.1/redhat/ only has subdirectories for redhat-6.2, redhat-7.3, redhat-8.0, rhas-2.1, rhel3 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lamar Owen" <lowen@pari.edu> To: "Manuel Tejada" <mantemu@terra.com.pe>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] I can't upgrade to PostgreSQL 7.4 in RedHat 9.0 > On Saturday 24 January 2004 10:38 pm, Manuel Tejada wrote: > > I followed the standar command to upgrade rpm packages but the installation > > failed due to conflicts with the installed package unixODBC-devel-2.2.3-6. > > Use the 7.4.1 RPMs. The conflict is fixed there, since it is an upstream > (that is, not an RPM) issue. The short of it was that the ECPG headers and > the unixODBC headers both thought they should be in the same place with the > same file name. The 7.4.1 install (tarball) patched this to put the ECPG > headers in a subdirectory, allowing unixODBC to have the name. > -- > Lamar Owen > Director of Information Technology > Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute > 1 PARI Drive > Rosman, NC 28772 > (828)862-5554 > www.pari.edu >
On Monday 26 January 2004 09:03 pm, Manuel Tejada wrote: > Where I can get the rpms for PostgreSQL 7.4.1? > The ftp://ftp15.us.postgresql.org/binary/v7.4.1/redhat/ only has > subdirectories for redhat-6.2, redhat-7.3, redhat-8.0, rhas-2.1, rhel3 For RH9 you will have to rebuild from the source RPM, since I don't yet have an RH9 set built. The source RPM is in the SRPMS directory under v7.4.1. Or you can wait until either Sander Steffann or someone else builds a set that I can upload. I no longer have an RH9 machine installed to build it with. You might be able to use the RHEL3 set, though, since RHEL3 and RHL9 are pretty close. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
We were able to use the RHEL3 under Red Hat 9 with no problems. Warmest regards, Ericson Smith Tracking Specialist/DBA +-----------------------+--------------------------------------+ | http://www.did-it.com | "Crush my enemies, see then driven | | eric@did-it.com | before me, and hear the lamentations | | 516-255-0500 | of their women." - Conan | +-----------------------+--------------------------------------+ Lamar Owen wrote: >On Monday 26 January 2004 09:03 pm, Manuel Tejada wrote: > > >>Where I can get the rpms for PostgreSQL 7.4.1? >> >> > > > >>The ftp://ftp15.us.postgresql.org/binary/v7.4.1/redhat/ only has >>subdirectories for redhat-6.2, redhat-7.3, redhat-8.0, rhas-2.1, rhel3 >> >> > >For RH9 you will have to rebuild from the source RPM, since I don't yet have >an RH9 set built. The source RPM is in the SRPMS directory under v7.4.1. Or >you can wait until either Sander Steffann or someone else builds a set that I >can upload. I no longer have an RH9 machine installed to build it with. > >You might be able to use the RHEL3 set, though, since RHEL3 and RHL9 are >pretty close. > >
Attachment
You are right, I installed PostgreSQL 7.4.1 rpms from directory RHEL3 on Red Hat 9.0 and the new version works OK. The only extrange thing I noticed after the installation is when I press the rigth button on any file from any directory to select an editor (for example vim) the editor doesn't respond. I don't know certainly if this malfunction is related to the new installation. But the start of PostgreSQL, creation of user, databases, etc, works well. By the way, what does mean RHEL3? Is it a new version of Red Hat? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ericson Smith" <eric@did-it.com> To: "Lamar Owen" <lowen@pari.edu> Cc: "Manuel Tejada" <mantemu@terra.com.pe>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 10:55 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] I can't upgrade to PostgreSQL 7.4 in RedHat 9.0 > We were able to use the RHEL3 under Red Hat 9 with no problems. > > Warmest regards, > Ericson Smith > Tracking Specialist/DBA > +-----------------------+--------------------------------------+ > | http://www.did-it.com | "Crush my enemies, see then driven | > | eric@did-it.com | before me, and hear the lamentations | > | 516-255-0500 | of their women." - Conan | > +-----------------------+--------------------------------------+ > > > > Lamar Owen wrote: > > >On Monday 26 January 2004 09:03 pm, Manuel Tejada wrote: > > > > > >>Where I can get the rpms for PostgreSQL 7.4.1? > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>The ftp://ftp15.us.postgresql.org/binary/v7.4.1/redhat/ only has > >>subdirectories for redhat-6.2, redhat-7.3, redhat-8.0, rhas-2.1, rhel3 > >> > >> > > > >For RH9 you will have to rebuild from the source RPM, since I don't yet have > >an RH9 set built. The source RPM is in the SRPMS directory under v7.4.1. Or > >you can wait until either Sander Steffann or someone else builds a set that I > >can upload. I no longer have an RH9 machine installed to build it with. > > > >You might be able to use the RHEL3 set, though, since RHEL3 and RHL9 are > >pretty close. > > > > >
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:50:47PM -0500, Manuel Tejada wrote: > By the way, what does mean RHEL3? "Red Hat Entreprise Linux", a commercial Linux distribution (meaning you shouldn't use it unless you pay for it). > Is it a new version of Red Hat? You mean Red Hat as in "Red Hat Linux"? That product has been discontinued, and superseded by a new project somewhat resembling Debian called Fedora Linux, which is the "free" version of the Red Hat Linux distribution. It doesn't seem to be suited for server use, of course. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "In Europe they call me Niklaus Wirth; in the US they call me Nickel's worth. That's because in Europe they call me by name, and in the US by value!"
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 23:04:53 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:50:47PM -0500, Manuel Tejada wrote: > > > By the way, what does mean RHEL3? > > "Red Hat Entreprise Linux", a commercial Linux distribution (meaning you > shouldn't use it unless you pay for it). From discussions I have seen, I don't think that is the correct semantics. I believe that you can use RHEL for free. But if you by a support license, you need to buy a support license for all copies of RHEL you are using.
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:50:47PM -0500, Manuel Tejada wrote:
>
> > By the way, what does mean RHEL3?
>
> "Red Hat Entreprise Linux", a commercial Linux distribution (meaning you
> shouldn't use it unless you pay for it).
No, it means you won't get support unless you pay for it, and if you get
support for a single machine in your organisation using RHEL, you must
get support for all of them.
Stephen
Attachment
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:22:29PM +1100, Stephen Robert Norris wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:50:47PM -0500, Manuel Tejada wrote: > > > > > By the way, what does mean RHEL3? > > > > "Red Hat Entreprise Linux", a commercial Linux distribution (meaning you > > shouldn't use it unless you pay for it). > > No, it means you won't get support unless you pay for it, and if you get > support for a single machine in your organisation using RHEL, you must > get support for all of them. It's exactly the same thing. Using an unsupported operating system is only a matter of time before some cracker 0wnz j00. Of course, you could build your own security updates, but it will be a very expensive thing to do. In this situation one should really consider switching to another distribution, like, say, White Box (which is built from the SRPMs of RHEL), or any other of the big ones. Or go with some *BSD. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "We are who we choose to be", sang the goldfinch when the sun is high (Sandman)
On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 22:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:22:29PM +1100, Stephen Robert Norris wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:50:47PM -0500, Manuel Tejada wrote: > > > > > > > By the way, what does mean RHEL3? > > > > > > "Red Hat Entreprise Linux", a commercial Linux distribution (meaning you > > > shouldn't use it unless you pay for it). > > > > No, it means you won't get support unless you pay for it, and if you get > > support for a single machine in your organisation using RHEL, you must > > get support for all of them. > > It's exactly the same thing. Using an unsupported operating system is > only a matter of time before some cracker 0wnz j00. Of course, you > could build your own security updates, but it will be a very expensive > thing to do. In this situation one should really consider switching to > another distribution, like, say, White Box (which is built from the > SRPMs of RHEL), or any other of the big ones. Or go with some *BSD. Huh? Or just use Fedora Core, which is what the consumer grade RedHat distro has become... -- Stephen Norris srn@fn.com.au Farrow Norris Pty Ltd +61 417 243 239
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:42:42PM +1100, Stephen Robert Norris wrote: > On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 22:11, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 04:22:29PM +1100, Stephen Robert Norris wrote: > > > On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > > > > > "Red Hat Entreprise Linux", a commercial Linux distribution (meaning you > > > > shouldn't use it unless you pay for it). [...] > Huh? Or just use Fedora Core, which is what the consumer grade RedHat > distro has become... But Fedora is very much a desktop linux distribution -- I wouldn't bet a server on it. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) La web junta la gente porque no importa que clase de mutante sexual seas, tienes millones de posibles parejas. Pon "buscar gente que tengan sexo con ciervos incendiánse", y el computador dirá "especifique el tipo de ciervo" (Jason Alexander)
El Lun 02 Feb 2004 11:59, Alvaro Herrera escribió:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:42:42PM +1100, Stephen Robert Norris wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Huh? Or just use Fedora Core, which is what the consumer grade RedHat
> > distro has become...
>
> But Fedora is very much a desktop linux distribution -- I wouldn't bet a
> server on it.
Why not? I don' t see much difference from other distributions, and at the
end, if you want a real server you have to go through all the configuration
to make sure it's going to have good performaces.
I have a par already installed. :-)
--
12:03:01 up 68 days, 18:19, 3 users, load average: 0.92, 0.48, 0.34
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar'
Centro de Telematica | DBA, Programador, Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:04:49PM -0300, Martin Marques wrote: > El Lun 02 Feb 2004 11:59, Alvaro Herrera escribió: > > But Fedora is very much a desktop linux distribution -- I wouldn't bet a > > server on it. > > Why not? I don' t see much difference from other distributions, and at the > end, if you want a real server you have to go through all the configuration > to make sure it's going to have good performaces. Fedora Core releases have too short a lifetime, by definition. You don't want to be upgrading your servers every 6 months, do you? I'd prefer something that gives me some more time before I have to consider it obsolete. RHEL is a good example; I think they give you 3 years, 5 for RHAS (is this right?). Debian, Mandrake, FreeBSD o OpenBSD give me a lot more confidence than FC because of this. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) Si no sabes adonde vas, es muy probable que acabes en otra parte.
El Lun 02 Feb 2004 14:47, Alvaro Herrera escribió:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 12:04:49PM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
> > Why not? I don' t see much difference from other distributions, and at the
> > end, if you want a real server you have to go through all the
configuration
> > to make sure it's going to have good performaces.
>
> Fedora Core releases have too short a lifetime, by definition. You
> don't want to be upgrading your servers every 6 months, do you? I'd
> prefer something that gives me some more time before I have to consider
> it obsolete. RHEL is a good example; I think they give you 3 years, 5
> for RHAS (is this right?). Debian, Mandrake, FreeBSD o OpenBSD give me
> a lot more confidence than FC because of this.
Well, one thing is for sure: It has to short of a life time. :-)
Anyway, even if they did say that the intention was to have three releases a
year, I can't imagine them even been able to make two. FC1 came by beginning
of November, and even if they have said there will be a second release in
May, I doubt they are going to make it before July.
Anyway I have to see how the upgrades perform, because depending on that is
how bad an idea it is to upgrade each 6 months (RedHat had some bad upgrade
issues in the past).
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------