Обсуждение: GDAL package naming question
Hello folks,
I had a question about the GDAL package naming convention.
I noticed that PGDG will sometimes change the name of some packages in order to include the version of postgres that they were compiled against (or maybe that they require at runtime). An example would be postgis2_95.
For reference, in the EPEL repo, PostGIS does not have the 95 modifier.
Here's a "yum list" result for postgis:
postgis.x86_64 2.0.7-1.el7 epel
I wanted to ask if there's a reason that GDAL didn't follow this convention. Even though each version of GDAL has a BuildRequires line that specifies a pgmajorversion build dependency, the result isn't a gdal95 RPM.
Is the reason because there's no runtime dependency on postgres (just a build one only)?
Also, if I used a version of gdal that was compiled with PostgreSQL 9.2 with my postgis2_95 build, would there be cause for concern? With the "95" off of the GDAL package name, it sort of implies that this sort of mixing / matching would potentially be safe. I'm guessing that's not the case, but I figured it's worth asking.
Thank you!
Regards,
-John Harvey
Hi John, On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 13:52 -0400, John Harvey wrote: > > I had a question about the GDAL package naming convention. > I noticed that PGDG will sometimes change the name of some packages in > order to include the version of postgres that they were compiled against > (or maybe that they require at runtime). An example would be postgis2_95. Right. > For reference, in the EPEL repo, PostGIS does not have the 95 modifier. > Here's a "yum list" result for postgis: > postgis.x86_64 2.0.7-1.el7 epel Right, they support only one version. > I wanted to ask if there's a reason that GDAL didn't follow this > convention. Even though each version of GDAL has a BuildRequires line that > specifies a pgmajorversion build dependency, the result isn't a gdal95 RPM. > > Is the reason because there's no runtime dependency on postgres (just a > build one only)? Well, I thought about adding suffix to gdal before, but then it might break other packages that depend on versionless gdal. Noone actually complained about it so far, so I *assumed* it is working. :-) > Also, if I used a version of gdal that was compiled with PostgreSQL 9.2 > with my postgis2_95 build, would there be cause for concern? With the "95" > off of the GDAL package name, it sort of implies that this sort of mixing / > matching would potentially be safe. I'm guessing that's not the case, but > I figured it's worth asking. Again, I did not hear any complaints from the field (yet), so... :) Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR