Thread: Reviewing ftp tree

Reviewing ftp tree

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

I was digging through our ftp tree today and noticed this:

binary/    
drwxrwxr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 17 02:05 v8.2.5
drwxrwxr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Oct  8 10:32 v8.3beta1
drwxr-xr-x   5 ftp      ftp           512 Nov  2 06:33 v8.3beta2

v8.2.5/
drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 linux
drwxr-xr-x   2 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 18 06:04 win32

linux/
drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 rpms
drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 srpms

It seems to me that this should be something more like:

packages/v8.2.5/linux/rh/rpms|srpms                    /suse/rpms|srpms               win32/               win64/ 

Thoughts?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


     === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHL6ipATb/zqfZUUQRAk/GAJ9+boXnH5ehWAeAn5BSuVk5DH1jzwCeMAMl
+FUpvwavOOstUMtHoKlmpwk=
=yVDS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Reviewing ftp tree

From
"Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Monday, November 05, 2007 15:35:03 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" 
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> I was digging through our ftp tree today and noticed this:
>
> binary/
> drwxrwxr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 17 02:05 v8.2.5
> drwxrwxr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Oct  8 10:32 v8.3beta1
> drwxr-xr-x   5 ftp      ftp           512 Nov  2 06:33 v8.3beta2
>
> v8.2.5/
> drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 linux
> drwxr-xr-x   2 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 18 06:04 win32
>
> linux/
> drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 rpms
> drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 srpms
>
> It seems to me that this should be something more like:
>
> packages/v8.2.5/linux/rh/rpms|srpms
>                      /suse/rpms|srpms
>                 win32/
>                 win64/

'k, you've lost me ... we dont' have win64 binaries, else Dave would have put 
that directory in (I suspect?), and is anyone doing suse binaries?

I'm not sure what changes you are proposing here ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHL6ux4QvfyHIvDvMRAiQRAJ4iZlzoZg9P54YIue2ZEhURgRSLIgCcD+Ej
/7lq2/tTelw2TrdtpdCJN4A=
=Rv+G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Re: Reviewing ftp tree

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:48:01 -0400
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> - --On Monday, November 05, 2007 15:35:03 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" 
> <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was digging through our ftp tree today and noticed this:
> >
> > binary/
> > drwxrwxr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 17 02:05 v8.2.5
> > drwxrwxr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Oct  8 10:32 v8.3beta1
> > drwxr-xr-x   5 ftp      ftp           512 Nov  2 06:33 v8.3beta2
> >
> > v8.2.5/
> > drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 linux
> > drwxr-xr-x   2 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 18 06:04 win32
> >
> > linux/
> > drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 rpms
> > drwxr-xr-x   4 ftp      ftp           512 Sep 16 12:05 srpms
> >
> > It seems to me that this should be something more like:
> >
> > packages/v8.2.5/linux/rh/rpms|srpms
> >                      /suse/rpms|srpms
> >                 win32/
> >                 win64/
> 
> 'k, you've lost me ... we dont' have win64 binaries, else Dave would
> have put that directory in (I suspect?), and is anyone doing suse
> binaries?

Well win64 and suse were to illustrate how the tree could expand over
time. You are right that we don't currently have win64, but with 8.3 we
support VC++ so we could in theory support win64 for 8.4.

Secondly I have been playing with building SuSE rpms to keep that tree
up to date for older SuSE releases and I could see it extending from
there as well (for example postgresql 8.2 for Ubuntu Dapper).

The real difference here is that binary is misleading as we have source
packages in there and it isn't really binary as much as just a package
repo.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> I'm not sure what changes you are proposing here ...
> 
> - ----
> Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org) Email .
> scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
> Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
> 
> iD8DBQFHL6ux4QvfyHIvDvMRAiQRAJ4iZlzoZg9P54YIue2ZEhURgRSLIgCcD+Ej
> /7lq2/tTelw2TrdtpdCJN4A=
> =Rv+G
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our
> list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
> 


- -- 
     === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHL6zuATb/zqfZUUQRAqonAJ9aAEbDAVY4YLr7kdHbK7NEHR+ZWQCfcpdU
YiGRSD29g7kKr7mNhGhYjO8=
=WX8B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Reviewing ftp tree

From
"Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Monday, November 05, 2007 15:53:15 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" 
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:


> Well win64 and suse were to illustrate how the tree could expand over
> time. You are right that we don't currently have win64, but with 8.3 we
> support VC++ so we could in theory support win64 for 8.4.
>
> Secondly I have been playing with building SuSE rpms to keep that tree
> up to date for older SuSE releases and I could see it extending from
> there as well (for example postgresql 8.2 for Ubuntu Dapper).
>
> The real difference here is that binary is misleading as we have source
> packages in there and it isn't really binary as much as just a package
> repo.

I'm not against it, just wanted to clarify what you were envisioning ...

+1 from here ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHL7634QvfyHIvDvMRAoI/AJ9K5Ka+I16JNkv8Gm6FxbKu2S63IwCggF79
89IlkzhOfnWr6Nu3zGSoO9w=
=VEN5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Re: Reviewing ftp tree

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 21:09:11 -0400
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> - --On Monday, November 05, 2007 15:53:15 -0800 "Joshua D. Drake" 
> <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Well win64 and suse were to illustrate how the tree could expand
> > over time. You are right that we don't currently have win64, but
> > with 8.3 we support VC++ so we could in theory support win64 for
> > 8.4.
> >
> > Secondly I have been playing with building SuSE rpms to keep that
> > tree up to date for older SuSE releases and I could see it
> > extending from there as well (for example postgresql 8.2 for Ubuntu
> > Dapper).
> >
> > The real difference here is that binary is misleading as we have
> > source packages in there and it isn't really binary as much as just
> > a package repo.
> 
> I'm not against it, just wanted to clarify what you were
> envisioning ...

Sure :)

> 
> +1 from here ...
> 
> - ----
> Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org) Email .
> scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
> Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
> 
> iD8DBQFHL7634QvfyHIvDvMRAoI/AJ9K5Ka+I16JNkv8Gm6FxbKu2S63IwCggF79
> 89IlkzhOfnWr6Nu3zGSoO9w=
> =VEN5
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0,
> the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
> 


- -- 
     === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHL8AUATb/zqfZUUQRAg2iAJ9P0qp6Pbt9J4G9iRg6D0gb2TN2ugCdGZ7T
GMVephiz6FzL25EwywAZIYM=
=Db0j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----