On Friday 10 October 2003 08:52 pm, Christopher Browne wrote:
Oops! nandrews@investsystems.co.uk ("Nigel J. Andrews") was seen
spray-painting on a wall:
I've not looked at many RPMs but I must say that the few I have have
never been relocatable. Can the postgresql RPMs not be made
relocatable?
Unfortunately, relocation would have to include the init scripts, and
that would be pretty hairy. The notion of "relocatable RPMs" came up
early in its design, but the only case where that will be particularly
usable is if the components are mostly binaries that only make
relative path references. That situation is unusual, to say the
least.
I've been watching this discussion with interest (well, I _am_ the RPM
maintainer, after all) and have to say that it has been thought of before.
It wasn't at that time implemented due to political factors (read: the then
Red Hat maintainer (@redhat.com) refused to include such support even if I
had built it). But I did go through the design phase. If everyone can be
patient, I'll try to go back into my archives and dig out the design doc I
put together way back then. In the meantime, I'd like to hear people's
ideas. As alternatives (debian-style) are fully supported in later Red Hat
(and the new Fedora Core) releases, a scheme that uses alternatives would be
ok.

Be sure to post to the pgsql-ports list instead of pgsql-general, though. If
the list server will accept it, reply-to has been set to pgsql-ports.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 1 of 4 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-ports @
categoriespostgresql
postedOct 14, '03 at 5:15p
activeOct 22, '03 at 6:07p
posts4
users3
websitepostgresql.org
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase