From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SuSE RPMs available for PostgreSQL 7.4 |
Date: | 2003-11-19 18:40:42 |
Message-ID: | 20031119143938.U731@ganymede.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 November 2003 11:59 am, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Lamar Owen writes:
> > > Hey, Peter, for one who consistently complains about lack of consistency
> > > in naming, you completely diregarded the precedent that has previously
> > > been set for naming RPM releases (regardless of the source).
>
> > These are SuSE RPMs. They were build by SuSE following the conventions
> > that SuSE has used for their past releases. So who are we to argue with
> > that?
>
> The place they were put. The 'customary place' has been
> v{version}/RPMS/{distribution} so that they would be in
> pub/binary/v7.4/RPMS/suse-{version}. Their source RPM would go there
> too. I have no problem with the name of the RPM's themselves, just
> where they were put. As long as they don't have a PGDG in the release
> tag I'm happy with the package names.
Actually, ummm ... what if I were to upload FreeBSD binaries? I think:
/pub/binary/v7.4/{suse|redhat|freebsd|solaris} makes more sense, no?
the RPMS at the top directory made sense when it was only RPMS that were
being provided, but ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-11-19 18:43:21 | Re: SuSE RPMs available for PostgreSQL 7.4 |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-11-19 18:29:30 | Re: SuSE RPMs available for PostgreSQL 7.4 |