Hi,

I run fedora rawhide and would like to try out the beta, but I like
keeping things "neat and tidy" using SRPMS where possible, as opposed to
tgz.

Anyone have an SRPM of spec file for the beta?

Thanks,
Steve


Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:23:02 -0500
Steve Bergman <steve@rueb.com>
SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Steve Bergman wrote:
> 
> Anyone have an SRPM of spec file for the beta?

I just made one; see:
   http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta1/
There are also Fedora Core 2 binaries there.

One caveat -- I am not the normal package maintainer, so no guarantees ;-).

HTH,

Joe

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:51:22 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Steve Bergman wrote:
> Anyone have an SRPM of spec file for the beta?

(moved to HACKERS)

I just created and posted a source RPM for 8.0.0beta1. As I'm not the 
usual packager, and a pure hack when it comes to building my own RPMs, 
it would be a Good Thing(tm) if someone else could vet this package; 
available here:
   http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta1/
There are binaries for Fedora Core 2 there as well.

I think it would help us get wider beta testing if others could build 
binaries for other distributions.

Joe

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:58:52 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [ADMIN] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Joe Conway wrote:
> Steve Bergman wrote:
> 
>> Anyone have an SRPM of spec file for the beta?
> 
> I just created and posted a source RPM for 8.0.0beta1. As I'm not the 
> usual packager, and a pure hack when it comes to building my own RPMs, 
> it would be a Good Thing(tm) if someone else could vet this package; 
> available here:
>   http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta1/
> There are binaries for Fedora Core 2 there as well.

I actually tried to use my own rpm today, and discovered a mistake 
resulting in a non-working install. Sorry for that, to those of you who 
grabbed a copy.

Version 2 of the source rpm is now available here:
http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta1/SRPM/postgresql-8.0.0beta1-2PGDG.src.rpm

I've also put up i386 binary rpms for fc1 and fc2, and x86_64 binary 
rpms for fc2.

Joe

Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:49:54 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Joe Conway wrote:
> Version 2 of the source rpm is now available here:
> http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta1/SRPM/postgresql-8.0.0beta1-2PGDG.src.rpm 
> 
> I've also put up i386 binary rpms for fc1 and fc2, and x86_64 binary 
> rpms for fc2.

Hopefully the third try is a charm ;-)

Version 3 is now available: fixes the init script. Previously 
/etc/init.d/postgresql worked the first time used (i.e. would initdb and 
start postgres) but not the second and subsequent times.

Joe

Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:32:45 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> Hopefully the third try is a charm ;-)

> Version 3 is now available: fixes the init script. Previously 
> /etc/init.d/postgresql worked the first time used (i.e. would initdb and 
> start postgres) but not the second and subsequent times.

[ blink... ]  Was this your own error, or are you saying there is such a
bug in the current RPM distributions?

			regards, tom lane

Tue, 17 Aug 2004 23:24:14 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> 
>>Hopefully the third try is a charm ;-)
> 
>>Version 3 is now available: fixes the init script. Previously 
>>/etc/init.d/postgresql worked the first time used (i.e. would initdb and 
>>start postgres) but not the second and subsequent times.
> 
> [ blink... ]  Was this your own error, or are you saying there is such a
> bug in the current RPM distributions?
> 

My own. I missed changing this line:
   if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '7.4' ]
to this:
   if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '8.0' ]

That code section gets skipped over in the case that no initdb has yet 
been performed, so I didn't notice until I went to restart the server.

Joe

Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:27:58 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 20:27 -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> My own. I missed changing this line:
>    if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '7.4' ]
> to this:
>    if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '8.0' ]
> 
> That code section gets skipped over in the case that no initdb has yet 
> been performed, so I didn't notice until I went to restart the server.
can't it be made version independent?
e.g. something like
if [ -f $PGDATA/PG_VERSION ]
...

-- 
Marius Andreiana
Galuna - Solutii Linux in Romania
http://www.galuna.ro


Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:44:39 +0300
Marius Andreiana <mandreiana@rdslink.ro>
Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 08:27:58PM -0700, Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> >
> >>Hopefully the third try is a charm ;-)
> >
> >>Version 3 is now available: fixes the init script. Previously 
> >>/etc/init.d/postgresql worked the first time used (i.e. would initdb and 
> >>start postgres) but not the second and subsequent times.
> >
> >[ blink... ]  Was this your own error, or are you saying there is such a
> >bug in the current RPM distributions?
> 
> My own. I missed changing this line:
>   if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '7.4' ]
> to this:
>   if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '8.0' ]

Isn't there a way to generate this automatically?  Why isn't the .spec
file (and the debian directory, for that matter) part of the source
tree?

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"I think my standards have lowered enough that now I think 'good design'
is when the page doesn't irritate the living f*ck out of me." (JWZ)


Wed, 18 Aug 2004 03:49:59 -0400
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Joe Conway wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hopefully the third try is a charm ;-)
>>
>>
>>> Version 3 is now available: fixes the init script. Previously 
>>> /etc/init.d/postgresql worked the first time used (i.e. would initdb 
>>> and start postgres) but not the second and subsequent times.
>>
>>
>> [ blink... ]  Was this your own error, or are you saying there is such a
>> bug in the current RPM distributions?
>>
> 
> My own. I missed changing this line:
>   if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '7.4' ]
> to this:
>   if [ `cat $PGDATA/PG_VERSION` != '8.0' ]

BTW I have bitten recently on the attempt of change the default port.
I did it as usual changing it in postgresql.conf but that parameter
is overriden by:
	PGPORT=5432
present on the start up script.

There is any reason to still pass this parameter to postmaster ?



Regards
Gaetano Mendola







	

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:20:18 +0200
Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: [ADMIN] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Why isn't the
> .spec file (and the debian directory, for that matter) part of the
> source tree?

Since packaging usually happens after a release, or at least continues 
well after a release, such files or directories would be perpetually 
outdated.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:20:59 +0200
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [ADMIN] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> Isn't there a way to generate this automatically?  Why isn't the .spec
> file (and the debian directory, for that matter) part of the source
> tree?

Can't speak for Debian, but Red Hat at least would not use such a spec
file anyway.  RH's procedures involve frequent addition of entries to
the spec file's ChangeLog, so they keep package spec files separate from
the "upstream" package tarball.  Another good reason for keeping a
separation is that the spec file may represent a package that
aggregates multiple upstream packages.  In the PG case a single specfile
currently aggregates the core server, jdbc, and pygresql ... and I'm
getting pressure to include more stuff.

The init script is a different matter.  That in principle could be taken
from the upstream package.  I'm not sure if all the Linux distributions
could agree on a single init script, though --- I think the conventions
vary somewhat across distros.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:33:45 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? 
Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> writes:
> BTW I have bitten recently on the attempt of change the default port.
> I did it as usual changing it in postgresql.conf but that parameter
> is overriden by:
> 	PGPORT=5432
> present on the start up script.

> There is any reason to still pass this parameter to postmaster ?

The init script needs to know the port number because it uses it in a
couple places.  Set the value you want in
/etc/sysconfig/pgsql/postgresql ...

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:09:30 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [ADMIN] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? 
Tom Lane wrote:

> Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> writes:
> 
>>BTW I have bitten recently on the attempt of change the default port.
>>I did it as usual changing it in postgresql.conf but that parameter
>>is overriden by:
>>	PGPORT=5432
>>present on the start up script.
> 
> 
>>There is any reason to still pass this parameter to postmaster ?
> 
> 
> The init script needs to know the port number because it uses it in a
> couple places.  Set the value you want in
> /etc/sysconfig/pgsql/postgresql ...

I know I know, but I'm wondering if this value could be retrieved from
another place instead:

grep -e "port" /var/lib/pgsql/data/postgresql.conf | cut -d '=' -f 2

I know it's horrible.

May be write some words inside postgresql.conf or write some warning in
the logs for sure could help.



Regards
Gaetano Mendola











Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:30:05 +0200
Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: [ADMIN] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Tom Lane wrote:
> In the PG case a
> single specfile currently aggregates the core server, jdbc, and
> pygresql ... and I'm getting pressure to include more stuff.

How does that compute, considering that everyone else appears to be 
working on including less stuff?

> The init script is a different matter.  That in principle could be
> taken from the upstream package.  I'm not sure if all the Linux
> distributions could agree on a single init script, though

That can be answered with a plain and simple "no".

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:55:21 +0200
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the PG case a
>> single specfile currently aggregates the core server, jdbc, and
>> pygresql ... and I'm getting pressure to include more stuff.

> How does that compute, considering that everyone else appears to be 
> working on including less stuff?

Well, *Marc* is working on including less stuff; the rest of us don't
necessarily agree.  In particular I've got to re-incorporate any major
pieces that get removed from the core distribution, since people expect
to find those in the RPM set.  (In principle I suppose they could be
handled as independent packages with independent specfiles, but so far
the path of least resistance has been to keep 'em bundled together.)

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:10:20 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, *Marc* is working on including less stuff; the rest of us don't
> necessarily agree.  In particular I've got to re-incorporate any major
> pieces that get removed from the core distribution, since people expect
> to find those in the RPM set.  (In principle I suppose they could be
> handled as independent packages with independent specfiles, but so far
> the path of least resistance has been to keep 'em bundled together.)
> 

On that, note that I specifically removed jdbc and tcl options from the 
spec file because the 8.0.0 release notes said they were removed from 
the distribution. I suppose at lease jdbc should be put back? It didn't 
seem right to include the 7.4 jdbc jars in the 8.0 source rpm, and I 
wasn't sure where to get the equivalent of 8.0.0beta1 jdbc jar files (if 
such a thing even exists).

Joe



Wed, 18 Aug 2004 09:21:17 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> On that, note that I specifically removed jdbc and tcl options from the 
> spec file because the 8.0.0 release notes said they were removed from 
> the distribution. I suppose at lease jdbc should be put back? It didn't 
> seem right to include the 7.4 jdbc jars in the 8.0 source rpm, and I 
> wasn't sure where to get the equivalent of 8.0.0beta1 jdbc jar files (if 
> such a thing even exists).

What I've done so far is just to grab the latest stable release from
jdbc.postgresql.org.  Using jars as part of the SRPM is pretty ugly,
I agree.  There are some other Red Hat folk who have promised to look
into getting JDBC built from source instead, but it's not high priority.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:33:24 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta? 


Joe Conway wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Well, *Marc* is working on including less stuff; the rest of us don't
>> necessarily agree.  In particular I've got to re-incorporate any major
>> pieces that get removed from the core distribution, since people expect
>> to find those in the RPM set.  (In principle I suppose they could be
>> handled as independent packages with independent specfiles, but so far
>> the path of least resistance has been to keep 'em bundled together.)
>>
>
> On that, note that I specifically removed jdbc and tcl options from 
> the spec file because the 8.0.0 release notes said they were removed 
> from the distribution. I suppose at lease jdbc should be put back? It 
> didn't seem right to include the 7.4 jdbc jars in the 8.0 source rpm, 
> and I wasn't sure where to get the equivalent of 8.0.0beta1 jdbc jar 
> files (if such a thing even exists).
>
>

ISTM we need an S/RPM project on pgfoundry, just like the Windows 
installer project. (and maybe a .deb and a Solaris .pkg project too).

cheers

andrew

Wed, 18 Aug 2004 12:43:20 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
> 
>>On that, note that I specifically removed jdbc and tcl options from the 
>>spec file because the 8.0.0 release notes said they were removed from 
>>the distribution. I suppose at lease jdbc should be put back? It didn't 
>>seem right to include the 7.4 jdbc jars in the 8.0 source rpm, and I 
>>wasn't sure where to get the equivalent of 8.0.0beta1 jdbc jar files (if 
>>such a thing even exists).
> 
> What I've done so far is just to grab the latest stable release from
> jdbc.postgresql.org.  Using jars as part of the SRPM is pretty ugly,
> I agree.  There are some other Red Hat folk who have promised to look
> into getting JDBC built from source instead, but it's not high priority.
> 

OK, done. Version 4 of the 8.0.0beta1 srpm (and the fc1/fc2 binary rpms) 
is available here:
   http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta1/

Joe

Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:10:29 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] SRPM for 8.0.0 beta?