Обсуждение: 7.0.1 Problems.
Well, in attempting to build RPMs for 7.0.1, I have unearthed a 26 megabyte problem. 26 megabytes is the difference in the size of an unpacked 7.0.1 source tree versus 7.0. 7.0.1 is 26 MB _smaller_. What's missing? A diff of a du on each tree shows that the unpacked docs are missing in 7.0.1. This causes a make all in the doc tree to fail (which was reported earlier this week on-list) -- which make all is required by the RPMs for the documentation build. However, that is only 7 MB of the 26 missing MB. So, I do a diff of find -print on each tree..... I also do a wc. The wc results are revealing -- 7.0's tree has 4,172 files. 7.0.1's tree has 2,562 files. Hmmm.... The PostScript docs are missing in 7.0.1, guys. Except for internals.ps, that is. Hmmm... Where is the rest of the space? Well, there are some *.o and *.so files laying around in the 7.0 tree. No, I haven't done a build here -- but, there is a complete build here -- or, it _looks_ like a complete build. 7.0.1 doesn't have any *.o's -- which is good! So, the *.o and *.so's (refint.so and autoinc.so) account for the majority of the missing 26MB. But, the docs are still missing...and I see no note about docs in HISTORY, so I'm assuming that them being missing is not intentional. I may have to make a patch from 7.0 to 7.0.1 for the non-doc portion, and patch a 7.0 tree (minus the *.o's), and generate a tree to put into any 7.0.1 RPMs I might generate. Until then (or 7.0.1-and-a-half is released), there will be no new RPMs, as I really don't have any intention of building doc-less RPMs.... :-(. Sorry I didn't catch this sooner, Marc. I should have followed through on my hunch that I should build RPMs during the prerelease period, after you announced here that the 7.0.1 release candidate was available -- regrettably, I did not do that build. RPM-building will show problems other builds won't. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
* Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000603 21:56] wrote: > Well, in attempting to build RPMs for 7.0.1, I have unearthed a 26 > megabyte problem. 26 megabytes is the difference in the size of an > unpacked 7.0.1 source tree versus 7.0. 7.0.1 is 26 MB _smaller_. > What's missing? I asked about this recently, as you noticed the docs are missing, you'll need to use docbook (jade or whatever) to generate them yourself or you can download the docs and whatnot already built from the download site. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> [ 7.0.1 missing docs, but 7.0 contains .o files it shouldn't have ]
I think Marc needs to automate his tarfile-building process a little
more thoroughly ... we keep having these release-to-release
discrepancies about just what's in the tar, how it's named, etc.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > [ 7.0.1 missing docs, but 7.0 contains .o files it shouldn't have ] > > I think Marc needs to automate his tarfile-building process a little > more thoroughly ... we keep having these release-to-release > discrepancies about just what's in the tar, how it's named, etc. But then again Marc himself just said something like that yesterday, a few hours before Lamar's comment. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/moat Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Tom Lane wrote: > > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > > > [ 7.0.1 missing docs, but 7.0 contains .o files it shouldn't have ] > > I think Marc needs to automate his tarfile-building process a little > > more thoroughly ... we keep having these release-to-release > > discrepancies about just what's in the tar, how it's named, etc. > But then again Marc himself just said something like that yesterday, > a few hours before Lamar's comment. Yeah, he mentioned that he had to rebuild his script due to a lossage. Possibly related. He certainly has my sympathies. Thankfully RPM building is relatively easy to automate (it's designed that way from the ground up, though). If I need to work around the lossage (with a docs tar for the RPMset or something similar generated from the 7.0 tarball) I can do that -- I just wanted to bring it to the list's attention. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000603 21:56] wrote: > > Well, in attempting to build RPMs for 7.0.1, I have unearthed a 26 > > megabyte problem. 26 megabytes is the difference in the size of an > > unpacked 7.0.1 source tree versus 7.0. 7.0.1 is 26 MB _smaller_. > > What's missing? > I asked about this recently, as you noticed the docs are missing, you'll > need to use docbook (jade or whatever) to generate them yourself or > you can download the docs and whatnot already built from the download > site. Unless there have been changes, I figured I'd take what I needed from the 7.0 tarball, unless a 7.0.1 re-release or 7.0.2 release is planned soon. I just want to see where the direction is going to be before doing that. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
* Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000604 13:57] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > * Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000603 21:56] wrote: > > > Well, in attempting to build RPMs for 7.0.1, I have unearthed a 26 > > > megabyte problem. 26 megabytes is the difference in the size of an > > > unpacked 7.0.1 source tree versus 7.0. 7.0.1 is 26 MB _smaller_. > > > What's missing? > > > I asked about this recently, as you noticed the docs are missing, you'll > > need to use docbook (jade or whatever) to generate them yourself or > > you can download the docs and whatnot already built from the download > > site. > > Unless there have been changes, I figured I'd take what I needed from > the 7.0 tarball, unless a 7.0.1 re-release or 7.0.2 release is planned > soon. I just want to see where the direction is going to be before doing > that. I wouldn't, shipping outdated docs is a nice way of shooting your users in the feet. -Alfred
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000604 13:57] wrote: > > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > > * Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000603 21:56] wrote: > > > > Well, in attempting to build RPMs for 7.0.1, I have unearthed a 26 > > > > megabyte problem. 26 megabytes is the difference in the size of an > > > > unpacked 7.0.1 source tree versus 7.0. 7.0.1 is 26 MB _smaller_. > > > > What's missing? > > > > > I asked about this recently, as you noticed the docs are missing, you'll > > > need to use docbook (jade or whatever) to generate them yourself or > > > you can download the docs and whatnot already built from the download > > > site. > > > > Unless there have been changes, I figured I'd take what I needed from > > the 7.0 tarball, unless a 7.0.1 re-release or 7.0.2 release is planned > > soon. I just want to see where the direction is going to be before doing > > that. > > I wouldn't, shipping outdated docs is a nice way of shooting your > users in the feet. actually, were there much changes to the docs themselves since the release of v7.0? the tar files I can find on the site are dated May 8th ...
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000604 13:57] wrote: > > > Unless there have been changes, I figured I'd take what I needed from > > > the 7.0 tarball, unless a 7.0.1 re-release or 7.0.2 release is planned > > > soon. I just want to see where the direction is going to be before doing > > > that. > > I wouldn't, shipping outdated docs is a nice way of shooting your > > users in the feet. > actually, were there much changes to the docs themselves since the release > of v7.0? the tar files I can find on the site are dated May 8th ... The major changes deal with the changed CVSROOT. There are other changes -- a diff -uNr between postgresql-7.0/doc/src and postgresql-7.0.1/doc/src is 100K or so, with the majority of it being $Header differences. I will wait to package 7.0.1 RPMs until a direction is set by Steering on this issue, or a week passes. If a week passes without a set direction, I'm going to package 7.0.1 RPMs with the 7.0 PostScript docs, unless I get my own jade/DocBook system up and running building the docs here first. (RedHat 6.2 ships with a jade/DocBook SGML toolset -- I just have to learn how to use it in this context.) Your call. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
okay, since I've obviously screwed up naming conventions on ppl (.7.0.1 vs
-7.0.1) and missed the docs, I'm just going to do a 're-release' with
these problems fixed and call it v7.0.2 ... I'm not going to bother
announcing this, cause there are no changes other then cleaning up the
packaging, but don't want to confuse ppl by just changing the contents of
hte existing tar files ...
If anyone feels like looking it over and telling me if I'm missing
anythign else, the 'generation script' is in
ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/www/supported-bin/mk-release (as is
mk-snapshot) ... please feel free to suggest any changes ...
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > > * Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> [000604 13:57] wrote:
> > > > Unless there have been changes, I figured I'd take what I needed from
> > > > the 7.0 tarball, unless a 7.0.1 re-release or 7.0.2 release is planned
> > > > soon. I just want to see where the direction is going to be before doing
> > > > that.
>
> > > I wouldn't, shipping outdated docs is a nice way of shooting your
> > > users in the feet.
>
> > actually, were there much changes to the docs themselves since the release
> > of v7.0? the tar files I can find on the site are dated May 8th ...
>
> The major changes deal with the changed CVSROOT. There are other changes --
> a diff -uNr between postgresql-7.0/doc/src and postgresql-7.0.1/doc/src is 100K
> or so, with the majority of it being $Header differences.
>
> I will wait to package 7.0.1 RPMs until a direction is set by Steering on this
> issue, or a week passes. If a week passes without a set direction, I'm going
> to package 7.0.1 RPMs with the 7.0 PostScript docs, unless I get my own
> jade/DocBook system up and running building the docs here first. (RedHat 6.2
> ships with a jade/DocBook SGML toolset -- I just have to learn how to use it in
> this context.)
>
> Your call.
>
> --
> Lamar Owen
> WGCR Internet Radio
> 1 Peter 4:11
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > these problems fixed and call it v7.0.2 ... I'm not going to bother > announcing this, cause there are no changes other then cleaning up the > packaging, but don't want to confuse ppl by just changing the contents of > hte existing tar files ... Well, I hate to say it, but, in keeping with the spirit of 6.4.1->6.4.2, a short note to announce and general might be in order. > If anyone feels like looking it over and telling me if I'm missing > anythign else, the 'generation script' is in > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/www/supported-bin/mk-release (as is > mk-snapshot) ... please feel free to suggest any changes ... Add a copy of the *.ps.gz docs after the copy of the tarred html docs. I _think_ that's all that's missing.... tar one up, and I'll try an RPM build tomorrow morning. I won't guarantee that an RPM build will catch all problems, but it will catch most. Not a bad script, BTW. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > these problems fixed and call it v7.0.2 ... I'm not going to bother > > announcing this, cause there are no changes other then cleaning up the > > packaging, but don't want to confuse ppl by just changing the contents of > > hte existing tar files ... > Well, I hate to say it, but, in keeping with the spirit of 6.4.1->6.4.2, a > short note to announce and general might be in order. Well, after writing that, and then re-reading it, I do want to say that I understand that this is different from the 6.4.1 mispackage -- as it was a package of the then CURRENT branch versus the stable branch, and was thus a more serious problem than the present one. I was not intending to make this one to be bigger than it is -- it is indeed a minor packaging error, not of the magnitude of 6.4.1. HOWEVER, the spirit of 6.4.1-6.4.2 is to at least make a brief note available. And I'm glad the 6.4.1 problem has not been repeated. My apologies. As an RPM packager, I have it a little easier than you do, Marc -- I can just release a minor update to the same version. Problems with 7.0-1? No problem -- here's 7.0-2. Save version of the program -- different release of the package. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > these problems fixed and call it v7.0.2 ... I'm not going to bother > > announcing this, cause there are no changes other then cleaning up the > > packaging, but don't want to confuse ppl by just changing the contents of > > hte existing tar files ... > > Well, I hate to say it, but, in keeping with the spirit of 6.4.1->6.4.2, a > short note to announce and general might be in order. > > > If anyone feels like looking it over and telling me if I'm missing > > anythign else, the 'generation script' is in > > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/www/supported-bin/mk-release (as is > > mk-snapshot) ... please feel free to suggest any changes ... > > Add a copy of the *.ps.gz docs after the copy of the tarred html docs. I > _think_ that's all that's missing.... tar one up, and I'll try an RPM build > tomorrow morning. I won't guarantee that an RPM build will catch all problems, > but it will catch most. Not a bad script, BTW. I believe it was decided already that the .ps.gz files would be available through the web, but not as part of the tar files themselves ... same with the other formats (A1?) that thomas had worked on ...
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Add a copy of the *.ps.gz docs after the copy of the tarred html docs. I > > _think_ that's all that's missing.... tar one up, and I'll try an RPM build > > tomorrow morning. I won't guarantee that an RPM build will catch all problems, > > but it will catch most. Not a bad script, BTW. > I believe it was decided already that the .ps.gz files would be available > through the web, but not as part of the tar files themselves ... same with > the other formats (A1?) that thomas had worked on ... Ok, then I guess I'll drop them from the RPM, unless they are requested by popular demand, in which case I can build either a separate package for them, or I can incorporate them as separate source files.... It'll depend upon response to RPMs without the PostScript files. That saves a little space, too!Of course, I'll include a pointer to themin my README.rpm. It is now coming back to me about the discussion on that issue -- but, I then found them in the 7.0 tarball, and misunderstood that they were still going to be included. Just a minor change, no biggie. Ok, when 7.0.2 is ready, I'll run a trial build.... -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
> > okay, since I've obviously screwed up naming conventions on ppl (.7.0.1 vs > -7.0.1) and missed the docs, I'm just going to do a 're-release' with > these problems fixed and call it v7.0.2 ... I'm not going to bother > announcing this, cause there are no changes other then cleaning up the > packaging, but don't want to confuse ppl by just changing the contents of > hte existing tar files ... > > If anyone feels like looking it over and telling me if I'm missing > anythign else, the 'generation script' is in > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/www/supported-bin/mk-release (as is > mk-snapshot) ... please feel free to suggest any changes ... We will need to add release note changes, and change the install files and other branding to mark it as 7.0.2. Let me know if you want me to do it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > okay, since I've obviously screwed up naming conventions on ppl (.7.0.1 vs > > -7.0.1) and missed the docs, I'm just going to do a 're-release' with > > these problems fixed and call it v7.0.2 ... I'm not going to bother > > announcing this, cause there are no changes other then cleaning up the > > packaging, but don't want to confuse ppl by just changing the contents of > > hte existing tar files ... > > > > If anyone feels like looking it over and telling me if I'm missing > > anythign else, the 'generation script' is in > > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/www/supported-bin/mk-release (as is > > mk-snapshot) ... please feel free to suggest any changes ... > > We will need to add release note changes, and change the install files > and other branding to mark it as 7.0.2. Let me know if you want me to > do it. okay, let's do this ... Lamar, please test the ones that are up there now ... I haven't announced it, and Vince hopefully didn't yet? :) Bruce, can you please do the appropriate branding? Once Bruce is done, and Lamar has reported it tested, I will create a 'final tar ball' ... If anyone else wants to take a look and comment, please do ...
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > okay, let's do this ... > > Lamar, please test the ones that are up there now ... I haven't announced > it, and Vince hopefully didn't yet? :) Nope, haven't yet. I'll wait for a go-ahead. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/moat Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
> > do it. > > okay, let's do this ... > > Lamar, please test the ones that are up there now ... I haven't announced > it, and Vince hopefully didn't yet? :) > > Bruce, can you please do the appropriate branding? OK, done. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Lamar, please test the ones that are up there now ... I haven't announced > it, and Vince hopefully didn't yet? :) > Once Bruce is done, and Lamar has reported it tested, I will create a > 'final tar ball' ... Built correctly. :-) -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
> I believe it was decided already that the .ps.gz files would be
> available through the web, but not as part of the tar files themselves
> ... same with the other formats (A1?) that thomas had worked on ...
?? Hmmph. I don't recall that, and am a bit unhappy that the docs are
now considered optional. Just because some of the developers don't use a
particular format is no reason to hide them from others...
- Thomas
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > I believe it was decided already that the .ps.gz files would be > > available through the web, but not as part of the tar files themselves > > ... same with the other formats (A1?) that thomas had worked on ... > > ?? Hmmph. I don't recall that, and am a bit unhappy that the docs are > now considered optional. Just because some of the developers don't use a > particular format is no reason to hide them from others... Who is hiding what? *All*, and as many, formats should be easily available through the web site ... why should the distribution contain >2Meg worth of extra docs? Its not something that I'm going to pull hair out over ... if ppl want them as part of the general distribution to download, I'll add it back into the release generation script ...