Hi,
Feel free to ignore this 'bug report', it's most likely INVALID, as I assumed
it was a binary release from upstream, which is incorrect. In fact I was
referring to the 'PGDG' RPM's. Mainly the situation is that the PostgreSQL
provided by Red Hat on RHEL5 doesn't suit our needs, and while PGDG offers a
more attractive choice, it also became not an option due to the packaging
methodology applied (the usage of 'alternatives'). So we've decided to build
our own packages for the future according to our real needs, including a bit
more of configuration effort and we will most likely share them through our
repositories for maybe someone who might have very close needs.
My apologies for rushing in filing a bug report based on innacurate
information, I should've done the research before and not after the bug report
submission.
I would also take this opportunity to express my sincere votes of a Merry
Christmas and a Happy Year to the developing team of PostgreSQL, all the
packagers and distributors and everyone else in the ecosystem.
Best Regards,
NM
Melhores cumprimentos,
Nelson M. Marques
________________________________________
De: Tom Lane [t...@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de Dezembro de 2011 17:46
Para: Robert Haas
Cc: Nelson Manuel Marques; pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org;
pgsqlrpms-hack...@pgfoundry.org
Assunto: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6341: Packaging - virtual provides "postgres" without
version
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:27 AM, <nelson-m-marq...@ext.ptinovacao.pt> wrote:
>> Currently your binary distribution of PostgreSQL for Enterprise Linux has a
>> virtual provides for 'postgresql' which has no version associated with it
>> (there's good and bad things depending on usage regarding this
>> methodology).
> The PostgreSQL project doesn't have any direct control over Red Hat's
> spec files, although Tom Lane, a PostgreSQL core team member, also
> works at Red Hat. I would suggest that you take this up with Red Hat
> directly...
There is no such Provides: in the Red Hat spec files, so I would assume
that this complaint is actually about the PGDG RPMs. Devrim?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
