Re: RPMs built for Mandrake
От | Lamar Owen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RPMs built for Mandrake |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39870068.1C1ACE3B@wgcr.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RPMs built for Mandrake (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > Well, what I had in mind was have a unified RPM tree, single SRPM, with > Oh. Since there was already an RPM->redhat-RPM, it was pretty clear that > we would be segregating the RPM files. Will rearrange asap. Sorry for the misunderstanding -- originally I had wanted it with a 'redhat-RPM', 'SuSE-RPM', etc structure -- so I went ahead and created (and linked to) redhat-RPM -- then, I realized the nightmare of multiple source RPM's, and symlinked 'RPM' to 'redhat-RPM' so as to not break the existing link(s). The next PostgreSQL version (major or minor) will have just the 'RPM' dir instead of 'redhat-RPM' and the symlink, unless it is felt by us that segregating the RPMs is better for the userbase. > > If you want to follow Mandrake naming conventions (-2mdk) that's fine, > > but not necessary as being in the 'mandrake-7.x' dir should set them > > apart. > That would seem to be problematic, since it would be difficult to tell > them apart outside the context of the Postgres ftp site. Don't know how > to assign a different version for different vendors within the RPM, > though I've gotten hints from your communications that it would be > possible. Also... Yes, this would be possible. There are macros available to the spec file that can change the output filename. This is why (I think) mandrake chose to put the -mdk on theirs. > > As a matter of necessity, you will be needing to upgrade to RPM 3.0.5 to > > do any RPM building from these src RPMs in the future, more than > > likely. > Hmm. So we are forcing an "RPM fork"? I'm running rpm-3.0.4 on a > Mandrake machine, and your current 7.0.2-2 rpms build just fine. What > new features are we getting with the update? Can an rpm built with 3.0.5 > be installed with a previous version of rpm (I would assume so, but just > checking...)? The only new feature 3.0.5 has over 3.0.4, IIRC, is ability to read rpm-4 source RPM's. There _are_ a number of bugfixes, however. With RPM 3.0.5 installed, there will still only need to be a single source RPM, potentially in rpm-4 format. I'm not sold on why a major format change was required, but, then again, I've not dug into it at that level. Yeah, I guess you could say we are forcing a 'fork' of sorts -- but the split was kindof forced on us, if we want to continue providing 'canonical' RPMs that distributions can ship -- easing somewhat the support burden. Binaries built with RPM 3.0.5 will install just fine on any RPM3 system, AFAIK. RPM 4, OTOH, is a major upgrade, and is likely one of the major upgrades that necessitated this RedHat release being version 7.0. The biggest change that I know of is a lowlevel major version upgrade of Berkeley DB, causing the very database format to be very incompatible with prior releases. > It seems like we will need to carry along two versions of the RPMs for a > while, since RedHat is pushing for new, incompatible versions of these > builds on *their* release cycle (though perhaps Mandrake is up the curve > on this; don't know myself). We will need to carry both 'redhat-6.x' and 'redhat-7.x' trees at least until Red Hat 8.0 is released. This is the same thing that happened with 5.2 -- which I really should reinstall to get newer RPM's onto it, as it is still officially supported by RedHat. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: