| From: | Martín Marqués <martin(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Devrim Gündüz <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-pkg-yum <pgsql-pkg-yum(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: barman package |
| Date: | 2014-09-05 14:13:34 |
| Message-ID: | 5409C50E.2010202@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-pkg-yum |
El 05/09/14 11:09, Devrim Gündüz escribió:
>
> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 10:58 -0300, Martín Marqués wrote:
>> Why was the 'c' excluded in the pgdg package?
>>
>> P.D.: I recall the heated discussion about leaving or taking away
>> the 'c' from package names after Fedora Core became just Fedora.
>
> I was on the "take away" camp :-)
Heh! ;)
In any case, why would that affect the update is something I don't get
(but I guess that's actually a Q for the rpm-list more then for this one).
I mean, the package name is on both repo barman.noarch and all that
needs to be done is compare versions, and there clearly 1.3.3 wins
over 1.3.2 which is what happens.
But why does rpm after that see both packages as different?
I think I'll raise the Q in the rpm-list to see what comes out.
--
Martín Marqués http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-09-05 14:28:55 | Re: barman package |
| Previous Message | Devrim Gündüz | 2014-09-05 14:09:50 | Re: barman package |