Re: New repmgr packages

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 18:51 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote:
> >
> > Err, IIRC, we *should not* export PATH in the spec file, per
> > packaging guidelines. That is why I add patches to each RPM.
>
> I can't find anything about *not* exporting PATH in the packaging
> guidelines (nor else where). Maybe you refer to export LD_LIBRARY_PATH?

It should be in the Fedora's packaging guidelines.

> In any case, I dislike both procedures.

Feel free to complain to Fedora. The policy has always been being close
to Fedora guidelines.

> Maybe the best way (and the more sane way) is to use alternatives to
> have pg_config, and other postgres binaries that don't have
> alternatives (I remember pg_controldata ATM) in the path? But that
> should go to the postgres packages.

That is never going to happen, too. We add alternatives to binaries that
are multi version compliant only. pg_config is not one of those.

Regards,

--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR