Re: PGDG?

On Sunday 10 June 2001 05:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> There shouldn't be a dot in '2.PGDG'.

Why? 'Official' Red Hat packages sometimes come out with dots in the release
number -- for example, compat-libstdc++-6.2-2.9.0.14 as installed in RedHat
7.1. And the 'unofficial' Rawhide is replete with decimal release numbers.

If a software package that claims to be RPM-compatible can't handle a fully
supported (by RPM itself) release name, well, the package's authors need to
take a look at their code.

Of course, it doesn't matter to me either way other than the readability
improvement of using the dot, so I'm not going to make it a religious issue.

> > To have five different RPMset's all claiming to be 'postgresql-7.1.2-1'
> > is IMHO too much, particularly when you use rpmfind.net's resources to
> > search for updated versions.

> That's why there is a Packager field in the information header. It is a
> bit misdesigned, I agree, but making your set with a cryptic name won't
> exactly underline its "official" status.

But that field doesn't show up in an ftp directory listing. As long as our
set is 'different' in name, I'm fine - but it needs to be where not only can
_we_ recognize the set, distributors can as well, and properly redirect
questions to us (or me) for that set.

Nor does the field show up on rpmfind.net's index. The least amount of
trouble, the better, IMHO. Why should I require the user to click on every
single 'postgresql-7.1.2-2.i386.rpm' link on rpmfind justto find our set?
No, our set (when I begin uploading to Red Hat's contrib server again) needs
to stand out in the list.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11