
Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org


Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:33:02 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Beta2 ... ?
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
> announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?

Wrap it up, I'd say.  I don't have anything pending that seems worth
holding up beta2 for.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:55:12 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 ... ? 
mike wrote:
>Tom Lane Wrote:
> > Wrap it up, I'd say.  I don't have anything pending that seems worth
> > holding up beta2 for.
 
> Will RPM's be made availiable for this beta release?

I intend to do so, but it will be a few days to a week after the tarball
release.

I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
changed.... :-)
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:35:43 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
> around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
> changed.... :-)

Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
testing work is not a good project management practice ...

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:49:04 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
> > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
> > changed.... :-)
 
> Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
> fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
> out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
> testing work is not a good project management practice ...

Ok, consider my mind changed. :-).  My only concerns were, due to some
feedback I have gotten, is that people would treat the RPM release as
_productions_ rather than beta -- but maybe I'm just being paranoid. 
More than likely I'm being paranoid.....

Look for RPM's in a few days, then.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:02:52 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> Ok, consider my mind changed. :-).  My only concerns were, due to some
> feedback I have gotten, is that people would treat the RPM release as
> _productions_ rather than beta -- but maybe I'm just being paranoid. 

As long as the RPMs are clearly marked beta, I don't have a lot of
sympathy for anyone who thinks beta == production.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:17:24 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
> > announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?
> 
> Wrap it up, I'd say.  I don't have anything pending that seems worth
> holding up beta2 for.

Will RPM's be made availiable for this beta release?

Mike


Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:10:31 -0800
"mike" <mike@neutrinostudios.com>
Re: Beta2 ... ? 
The Hermit Hacker writes:

> Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
> announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?

I'll commit the grammar changes we discussed yesterday, plus some new
documentation that goes with it, tomorrow.  I'm also going to send you a
patch for mk-release so that the right documentation files are shipped
this time.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Sat, 6 Jan 2001 03:54:19 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Beta2 ... ?
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
> > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
> > changed.... :-)
> 
> Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
> fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
> out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
> testing work is not a good project management practice ...

I'd like to argue for .deb Debian packages as well, for similar reasons.
But I'm aware that those are harder to produce, and that Oliver Elphick
is almost alone on this task.

--
Emmanuel Charpentier

Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:40:21 +0100
Emmanuel Charpentier <charpent@bacbuc.fdn.fr>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Ok, consider my mind changed. :-).  My only concerns were, due to some
> feedback I have gotten, is that people would treat the RPM release as
> _productions_ rather than beta -- but maybe I'm just being paranoid. 

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you!

But like Tom says - a beta in the name - should do it (and will for me).

Lamar,

Is it possible to put some variables in the spec file so I can turn off
compiling the python and tcl portions.  Of course I seem to remember a
thread to a similar effect floating through but can't remember what the
outcome was.


TIA,
Rod
-- 


Sat, 6 Jan 2001 07:56:29 -0800 (PST)
"Roderick A. Anderson" <raanders@tincan.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
  >Tom Lane wrote:
  >> 
  >> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
  >> > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
  >> > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
  >> > changed.... :-)
  >> 
  >> Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
  >> fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
  >> out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
  >> testing work is not a good project management practice ...
  >
  >I'd like to argue for .deb Debian packages as well, for similar reasons.
  >But I'm aware that those are harder to produce, and that Oliver Elphick
  >is almost alone on this task.

I'll be doing it soon; but I don't want to release debs until there is
no more chance of an initdb's being needed between betas; that bit me on 
7.0.

-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see 
      God."                    Matthew 5:8 



Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:35:55 +0000
"Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
"Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk> writes:
> I'll be doing it soon; but I don't want to release debs until there is
> no more chance of an initdb's being needed between betas; that bit me on 
> 7.0.

In that case you may as well say that there will be no beta debs, and
Debian users can forget about being part of the beta test process.

We do not make a guarantee of "no more initdbs" until final release.
The severity of bug needed to make us do one goes up considerably with
each beta, but there will not be a guarantee on *any* beta.  If there
were such a guarantee, it'd be final not beta.

			regards, tom lane

Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:18:02 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>   >Tom Lane wrote:
>   >> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
>   >> > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
>   >> > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
>   >> > changed.... :-)

>   >> Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
>   >> fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
>   >> out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
>   >> testing work is not a good project management practice ...

>   >I'd like to argue for .deb Debian packages as well, for similar reasons.
>   >But I'm aware that those are harder to produce, and that Oliver Elphick
>   >is almost alone on this task.
 
> I'll be doing it soon; but I don't want to release debs until there is
> no more chance of an initdb's being needed between betas; that bit me on
> 7.0.

Well, it bit me too -- which is one of the lesser reasons why I have
been reluctant to release RPM's before a release candidate.  However, if
someone wants to beta test the packaging (which, incidentally, is made
substantially easier with 7.1) of the new release, then they should
expect the results -- for instance, Red Hat doesn't guarantee that you
will be able to upgrade from their public beta test OS releases to any
future release (more than likely you _will_ be able to, but not
necessarily).  Only official releases are 'upgradeable'.  I would
suggest, as I am doing myself, to release beta-grade packages for
testing _only_, with the proper disclaimers.

But, I don't see how debs are harder to produce than RPMs -- and while I
do have some help from RedHat, SuSE, and others, that help seems to be
more towards their distribution rather than towards PostgreSQL -- ie,
they go their own way for the most part.  Each distribution using RPM's
has its own arcane rules -- and some of those rules make little sense
from the PostgreSQL point of view.  And, I don't blame them one whit for
that -- they are, after all, employed for the purpose of making a
distribution, not a PostgreSQL package.  
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:14:09 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?


On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
> > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
> > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
> > changed.... :-)
> 
> Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
> fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
> out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
> testing work is not a good project management practice ...

FWIW:

We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.  So
you can count me as one beta tester that you would have if you made RPMS of the
betas.


Regards,
Mike


Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:25:02 -0600 (CST)
Michael J Schout <mschout@gkg.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
Michael J Schout wrote:
> We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
> were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
> that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.  So
> you can count me as one beta tester that you would have if you made RPMS of the
> betas.

Your offer is appreciated, and will most definitely be taken :-).

I'm experiencing some degree of difficulty with the build -- mostly due
to some reorg in the Perl and Python clients, but also some main Make
framework as well, thanks to the RPM build-root environment. The
compiles I have done outside the RPM environment have worked and
installed (as source installs) very cleanly -- but the RPM build-root
environment is rather different -- installing files to a location where
they won't actually be installed to :-).

Let me explain:  so that RPM builders don't accidentally trash their
systems during building, RPM includes a 'build-root' mechanism that
allows a fake root for the build install to be used instead of the real
root.  Think 'chroot-lite'.  This build-root is not enforced anywhere
except by the spec file build and install sections.  This also allows
RPMs to be built for root installation by a non-root user, which
provides an extra layer of filesystem protection.

So, files get installed to this build-root, for eventual real
installation on the real root when the RPM is actually installed.

However, there are some hard-coded paths left in the build, and the perl
client is being difficult, and odbcinst is going to the REAL /usr/etc
instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc.... I have lots of combing to do.  In
many ways 7.1 is an easier build -- but not in this regard. But I
consider this an RPM issue and not a PostgreSQL tarball issue, meaning,
while I will be developing patches for the RPM build, I won't expect
those to be integrated into the main tarball.

So, I'm plugging at it....
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:11:11 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Michael J Schout writes:

> We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
> were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
> that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.

Building from source takes five minutes.  Reading the installation
instructions takes maybe ten minutes.  Don't tell me you don't have that
amount of time but you still want to beta test.  *shrug*

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:43:03 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
Lamar Owen writes:

> However, there are some hard-coded paths left in the build, and the perl
> client is being difficult,

The Perl and Python clients use their own build system.  Not sure how to
handle it.

> and odbcinst is going to the REAL /usr/etc instead of
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc....

Works here.  Hmm, are you using 'make install DESTDIR=/random/place'?
Given that it's not documented it's unlikely that you are.  But do start
using it.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:53:32 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> > However, there are some hard-coded paths left in the build, and the perl
> > client is being difficult,
 
> The Perl and Python clients use their own build system.  Not sure how to
> handle it.

I'm looking, in between day job stuff.
 
> > and odbcinst is going to the REAL /usr/etc instead of
> > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc....
 
> Works here.

Which doesn't surprise me.  The RPM building environment is not the same
as building from source inside a regular user shell.  Similar, but not
the same.

> Hmm, are you using 'make install DESTDIR=/random/place'?
> Given that it's not documented it's unlikely that you are.  But do start
> using it.

Enlighten me.  DESTDIR does?  

Currently, my install lines look like:
make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src
install
make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C
src/interface
s/perl5 install

So, I would put something like:
make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr
DESTDIR=/usr -C src install
???

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:03:03 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Lamar Owen writes:

> > Hmm, are you using 'make install DESTDIR=/random/place'?
> > Given that it's not documented it's unlikely that you are.  But do start
> > using it.
>
> Enlighten me.  DESTDIR does?

It installs files at a different place than where they will eventually
reside.  E.g., if your --prefix is /usr/local and DESTDIR=/var/tmp/foo
then the files will end up in /var/tmp/foo/usr/local.  This is exactly for
package management type applications.

> Currently, my install lines look like:
> make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src
> install
> make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C
> src/interface
> s/perl5 install

Then it's not surprising that things don't work since neither POSTGRESDIR
nor PREFIX are used anywhere in PostgreSQL makefiles.

> So, I would put something like:
> make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr
> DESTDIR=/usr -C src install
> ???

./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
            --docdir=/usr/share/doc/postgresql-'$(VERSION)' \
            --mandir=/usr/share/man \
            ...other options...
make all
make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:55:21 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> > Enlighten me.  DESTDIR does?
 
> It installs files at a different place than where they will eventually
> reside.  E.g., if your --prefix is /usr/local and DESTDIR=/var/tmp/foo
> then the files will end up in /var/tmp/foo/usr/local.  This is exactly for
> package management type applications.

Good.
 
> Then it's not surprising that things don't work since neither POSTGRESDIR
> nor PREFIX are used anywhere in PostgreSQL makefiles.

Had they been prior to 7.1?

> ./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
>             --docdir=/usr/share/doc/postgresql-'$(VERSION)' \
>             --mandir=/usr/share/man \
>             ...other options...

Already doing all of that, except --sysconfdir and friends.  It's more
complicated than the above:
./configure --prefic=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
            --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}/%{version} \
            --mandir=%{_mandir} \
            ....
to take into account the differing distributions' differing ideas of
where things ought to be put.

> make all
> make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

Much simpler.  Will get back as soon as I get time to run a build (staff
meeting here in ten minutes.....).

Does the python build stuff use DESTDIR these days?  The perl stuff
needs some other things, unfortunately.  I need to look in the CPAN RPM
spec's to get examples of how to do this portably without major
connarptions.

I knew you had changed something along those lines; I even remember a
message listing the switches necessary; but I could not find it in my
message archive.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:03:56 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?


On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Michael J Schout writes:
> 
> > We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
> > were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
> > that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.
> 
> Building from source takes five minutes.  Reading the installation
> instructions takes maybe ten minutes.  Don't tell me you don't have that
> amount of time but you still want to beta test.  *shrug*

Yes, building the sources isn't that difficult, but it definately takes longer
than:

rpm -ivh ftp://ftp.postgresql/pub/whatever/postgresql-\*.rpm

My feeling is that if we can make it as easy as possible for beta testers to
get the beta releases up and running, the more likely they are to use the beta
releases.

Mike


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:14:43 -0600 (CST)
Michael J Schout <mschout@gkg.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
Lamar Owen writes:

> Does the python build stuff use DESTDIR these days?

It does not.  You'd have to delve into the internals of the
Python-provided makefiles.  I might just have to do that, but if you want
to look then let me know because this should get fixed.

> The perl stuff needs some other things, unfortunately.  I need to look
> in the CPAN RPM spec's to get examples of how to do this portably
> without major connarptions.

The Perl build hasn't changed since 7.0 in dramatic ways.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:30:09 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)
Speaking of which..
>
> rpm -ivh ftp://ftp.postgresql/pub/whatever/postgresql-\*.rpm
>
Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
(www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
packages for the betas?

- Brandon

b. palmer,  bpalmer@crimelabs.net
pgp:  www.crimelabs.net/bpalmer.pgp5


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:50:25 -0500 (EST)
bpalmer <bpalmer@crimelabs.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
bpalmer writes:

> Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
> (www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
> get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
> packages for the betas?

The RPMs are on the FTP server.

In general I feel that packaging is left up to the operating system
distributor.  So your OpenBSD packages should be sent to the respective
port maintainer.  The RPMs are treated somewhat differently because they
are platform independent and a lot of people are interested in getting
betas in RPM form -- and not least importantly also because someone has
taken the time to do it on a regular basis.  The RPMs that are on the
various Linux distribution CDs are still customized by the respective
vendor.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:39:44 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
> > Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
> > (www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
> > get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
> > packages for the betas?
> The RPMs are on the FTP server.
> In general I feel that packaging is left up to the operating system
> distributor.  So your OpenBSD packages should be sent to the respective
> port maintainer.  The RPMs are treated somewhat differently because they
> are platform independent and a lot of people are interested in getting
> betas in RPM form -- and not least importantly also because someone has
> taken the time to do it on a regular basis.  The RPMs that are on the
> various Linux distribution CDs are still customized by the respective
> vendor.

Although packages should of course be sent to the port maintainer, I'm
sure that in general that they would be welcome on ftp.postgresql.org
also. The RPMs have greater visibility because we have taken the time to
evolve the packaging (and because the packaging needed a good bit of
work on the system I had at the time, so what the heck ;) and certainly
they have benefited from Lamar's attention over the last months.

Other packages would potentially be in the same circumstances: if they
are packaged by someone familiar with the package itself, they will
become better than if they are packaged by someone only familiar with
packaging. Certainly every package done by someone active on these lists
(e.g. Oliver with Debian) is of high quality and has benefited from
their knowledge of PostgreSQL.

I'm not sure what the case is for OpenBSD specifically, but you may want
to talk more with the "official maintainer" if that isn't yourself...

                      - Thomas

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:50:13 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: Beta2 ... ?
bpalmer wrote:
  >Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
  >(www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
  >get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
  >packages for the betas?

Typically, deb files are obtained from ftp.debian.org or one of its
mirrors.  That's how you know you're getting an official Debian package.

I'm in the process of making debs for the current beta, and will host them
somewhere for people to grab for experimenting.  I won't put anything
into the Debian site until 7.1 is finally released. I'll announce where to
get beta debs when the first set is done.  However, that may be a day or two
yet, because I have to redo a lot of packaging.


-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and 
      his truth endureth to all generations."         
                                     Psalms 100:5 



Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:35:07 +0000
"Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ? 
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> > Does the python build stuff use DESTDIR these days?
 
> It does not.  You'd have to delve into the internals of the
> Python-provided makefiles.  I might just have to do that, but if you want
> to look then let me know because this should get fixed.

Hmmm.  Then I may just keep the python build I have now, as it should
still work, and it is a 'full-manual' build.
 
> > The perl stuff needs some other things, unfortunately.  I need to look
> > in the CPAN RPM spec's to get examples of how to do this portably
> > without major connarptions.
 
> The Perl build hasn't changed since 7.0 in dramatic ways.

Well, it's pretty dramatic to get the starred box saying that I don't
have permissions to install to where I want to install it when I'm
running as root.  Or, to put it more tersely, the 7.0 build worked in
the RPM build context -- the 7.1 build does not with the same build
technique.

The root cause is an if [ -w check for the intalldir, which is set to an
entirely inappropriate place.

So, there are differences (I think the new way is going to be smoother,
personally, once I get it working again).
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:08:07 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> because I have to redo a lot of packaging.

I know how you feel.....:-)
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:13:13 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Lamar Owen wrote:
> Well, it's pretty dramatic to get the starred box saying that I don't
> have permissions to install to where I want to install it when I'm
> running as root.  

You'd think that, as a native English speaker, I could structure a
sentence more effectively than that....

Let me rephrase:

It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
the make install) as root.  Particularly when 7.0's perl 'make install'
worked semi-properly.  I say semi-properly because the packing list had
to be rewritten -- but at least the install did its job to the proper
build-root'ed location.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:27:09 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)
Lamar Owen writes:

> It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
> message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
> the make install) as root.  Particularly when 7.0's perl 'make install'
> worked semi-properly.  I say semi-properly because the packing list had
> to be rewritten -- but at least the install did its job to the proper
> build-root'ed location.

Then we apparently have a problem here.  I can only say "works here", and
I verified against the MakeMaker internals that things work as designed.
What does 'gmake -f Makefile echo-installdir' show?  Is it the location
you'd expect, and do you really have write access to that location?
Maybe a shell problem in GNUmakefile?  I'm sitting at a RH 7.0 system and
when I wrote this code I was using 5.2, so I must suspect that you are
doing something that voids the warranty. ;-)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Sat, 13 Jan 2001 04:13:50 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)
> It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
> message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
> the make install) as root.  Particularly when 7.0's perl 'make install'
> worked semi-properly.  I say semi-properly because the packing list had
> to be rewritten -- but at least the install did its job to the proper
> build-root'ed location.

Just an fyi...

I have been having trouble with one of the package files disappearing
from the temporary instllation area during the rpm build of pg-7.0.3 for
Mandrake on Mandrake-7.2 using a recent source RPM. I haven't tracked
down the problem yet :(

                   - Thomas

Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:06:05 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
> > message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and

> I have been having trouble with one of the package files disappearing
> from the temporary instllation area during the rpm build of pg-7.0.3 for
> Mandrake on Mandrake-7.2 using a recent source RPM. I haven't tracked
> down the problem yet :(

To say that I am interested in the outcome would be an understatement.

I fixed my perl problems by invoking the Makefile (not the GNUmakefile) for the
second install and setting PREFIX properly then.  Yes, the second install
phase.  I'll see if I can't fix this a little better -- but my goal was to get
a build so that I can start fixing some things.

Most of the stuff I am having to 'fix' is kludgery that Peter's config and
makefile changes are eliminating :-).

But having to regen patches and rebuild from scratch each time I change the
spec makes it time-consuming.....  But the single DESTDIR addition makes it a
much easier and cleaner build
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:58:52 -0500
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>
Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)