Re: BUG #6341: Packaging - virtual provides "postgres" without version

Hi,

Feel free to ignore this 'bug report', it's most likely INVALID, as I assum=
ed it was a binary release from upstream, which is incorrect. In fact I was=
 referring to the 'PGDG' RPM's. Mainly the situation is that the PostgreSQL=
 provided by Red Hat on RHEL5 doesn't suit our needs, and while PGDG offers=
 a more attractive choice, it also became not an option due to the packagin=
g methodology applied (the usage of 'alternatives'). So we've decided to bu=
ild our own packages for the future according to our real needs, including =
a bit more of configuration effort and we will most likely share them throu=
gh our repositories for maybe someone who might have very close needs.

My apologies for rushing in filing a bug report based on innacurate informa=
tion, I should've done the research before and not after the bug report sub=
mission.

I would also take this opportunity to express my sincere votes of a Merry C=
hristmas and a Happy Year to the developing team of PostgreSQL, all the pac=
kagers and distributors and everyone else in the ecosystem.

Best Regards,
NM




Melhores cumprimentos,
Nelson M. Marques
________________________________________
De: Tom Lane [tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Enviado: sexta-feira, 23 de Dezembro de 2011 17:46
Para: Robert Haas
Cc: Nelson Manuel Marques; pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; pgsqlrpms-hackers@pgf=
oundry.org
Assunto: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6341: Packaging - virtual provides "postgres" with=
out version

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 11:27 AM,  <nelson-m-marques@ext.ptinovacao.pt> w=
rote:
>> Currently your binary distribution of PostgreSQL for Enterprise Linux ha=
s a
>> virtual provides for 'postgresql' which has no version associated with it
>> (there's good and bad things depending on usage regarding this
>> methodology).

> The PostgreSQL project doesn't have any direct control over Red Hat's
> spec files, although Tom Lane, a PostgreSQL core team member, also
> works at Red Hat.  I would suggest that you take this up with Red Hat
> directly...

There is no such Provides: in the Red Hat spec files, so I would assume
that this complaint is actually about the PGDG RPMs.  Devrim?

                        regards, tom lane