RE: PGDG?

The ability to easily identify builds by packager is a great idea, but in
practice, I discovered last night (earlier this morning) that using such a
filename construct apparently confuses rpm-oriented applications like
RedHats kickstart, which has expectations about the composition of the "."
delimited elements in an rpm filename.

I think I'll just have to quell impatience and laziness and rely on rpm -qPi
or rpm -qPil <package>

tjm

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 2:32 AM
To: Lamar Owen
Cc: Tim Mickol; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PGDG?

Lamar Owen writes:

> On Saturday 09 June 2001 20:53, Tim Mickol wrote:
> > what does the element PGDG in an rpm filename, e.g.,
> > postgresql-test-7.1.2-2.PGDG.i386.rpm, allude to?
> > PostGreSQL Development Group? What does it mean?
>
> PostgreSQL Global Development Group.

There shouldn't be a dot in '2.PGDG'.

> 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.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl