From: | "Sergio A(dot) Kessler" <sak(at)tribctas(dot)gba(dot)gov(dot)ar> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] rpms |
Date: | 2000-03-03 12:39:32 |
Message-ID: | SAK.2000.03.03.qobrtjjp@sergio |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> el día Thu, 02 Mar 2000
16:38:23 +0000, escribió:
>> Why not just name the packages postgresql-server and postgresql-client
[...]
>That is possible. imho it is solving a "problem" with no clear benefit
>in the end, so why bother? Just renaming packages doesn't, by name
>alone, clarify which packages depend on others, doesn't clarify that
>-server depends on -client, etc etc.
sorry to be picky thomas, but if the name has almost no mean
(as you imply) then why not call the package "pirindonga" ?
anyway, is not a problem for =me=, I know now what the package
contains (but I've installed the postgres rpm believing I was
installing the server, so count on me as one damnified that
ignored that there must be a package named just postgresql).
one last thing, usually users don't look at the full description
of the package before installing it, they (and I) just do
rpm -Uvh xxxxx.rpm (usually the name is self descriptive)
sergio
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyle Bateman | 2000-03-03 18:19:25 | 7.0beta bug (or feature)? |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-03-02 16:38:23 | Re: [HACKERS] rpms |