Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> el día Wed, 01 Mar 2000
14:00:27 +0000, escribió:
>> it shouldn't be better to rename the package postgresql-xxx.rpm
>> to postgresql-libs-xxx.rpm ??
>> actually is quite confusing, because at first look it seems that
>> this package is the real thing (then you discover that is not,
>> that the package you really want is postgresql-server).
>
>Actually, what you suggest was how the naming was in earlier RPMs.
>However, I changed the naming convention since the fundamental
>installation should require client-side code only, to talk to a remote
>server. In cases where Postgres is deployed on many machines, only one
>or a few will have the server installed, while all machines will get
>the client packages.
hi thomas; yup, I agree that the client side is more deployed,
and that the packages should be split into server for one side
and libs in other side.
and I don't have problems with this, I just have problems
with the =name= of the package that contain the libs.
it should be clear that the package contains ONLY the client side,
a package just named "postgresql" appear like it contains PostgreSql,
when this, in fact, is not true.
just like postgresql-server.xxx.rpm, this package is well named IMO
(is pretty clear that it contains the PostgreSql server)
what is more clear/descriptive to you for a package that ONLY
contains PostgreSql libraries:
a) postgresql-libs.xxx.rpm (or maybe postgresql-clientlibs.xxx.rpm ?)
b) postgresql.xxx.rpm
??
Sergio