Re: postgis24_* package

On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 05:52:29PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> Just curious how the postgis package upgrades are intended to work ? It seems
...
> Further, how do I actually install postgis24_96 ? Do I actually have to run
> "rpm -e postgis23_96" first ? Or is some particular yum incanatation intended

I've upgraded nearly all our customers to postgis24_96. For most this has, at
worst, first required rpm -e postgis2_96. Here's one, final, issue with our
otherwise up-to-date customers:

[pryzbyj(at)TELSASOFT01 ~]$ sudo yum install postgis24_96
...
Installing: postgis24_96
x86_64 2.4.0-1.rhel6
pgdg96 9.3 M
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/pgsql-9.6/lib/liblwgeom.so from install of postgis24_96-2.4.0-1.rhel6.x86_64 conflicts with file from package postgis22_96-2.2.5-1.rhel6.x86_64
file /usr/pgsql-9.6/share/extension/address_standardizer.control from install of postgis24_96-2.4.0-1.rhel6.x86_64 conflicts with file from package postgis22_96-2.2.5-1.rhel6.x86_64
[...]

[pryzbyj(at)TELSASOFT01 ~]$ sudo rpm -e postgis22_96
error: Failed dependencies:
postgis is needed by (installed) python-mapscript-5.0.2-3.x86_64

So I ended up having to remove multiple packages in order to upgrade:
[pryzbyj(at)TELSASOFT01 ~]$ sudo rpm -e python-mapscript.x86_64 postgis22_96-2.2.5-1.rhel6.x86_64

I think postgis24_96 should conflict postgis23_96 (et al) and postgis24_96
should have a redhat equivalent of what in debian's package metadata would be
expressed as Conflicts+Replaces: postgis2_96, forcing removal of postgis2_96.
And optionally Provides: postgis2_96, if it's intended to allow other packages
to "Depend: postgis2_96" for postgis2 rather than enumerating supported version
(Depends: postgis24_96|postgis23_96|postgis22_96).

Justin