Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Steve Wolfe
Subject Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Date
Msg-id 00e101c0ea16$93deb4c0$50824e40@iboats.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout  (Gerald Gutierrez <gml1@coldresist.com>)
List pgsql-general
> >     Now, play some villanous music, and enter RedHat wearing a black
cape,
> > with small, beedy eyes.
>
> I don't have a cape, but I do have a red hat. And blue eyes, normal
size.

  I was going for the melodrama. : )

> > They insist that an OS should not touch /usr/local, and they're
> > right about that.  However, if you choose to download the Postgres
> > RPM and install it via RPM yourself, they seem to interpret that as
> > "the OS touching /usr/local", and it won't happen.
>
> For managed distributions, the standard way of doing things is "if
> it's in the package format, put it in /usr. /usr/local is for things
> not managed by this system (rpm, deb, whatever)" (typically  this
> means things installed by loki :), things compiled locally without
> package systems (configure && make install) etc.

  "standard" rarely equates to "correct" or even "useful".

   But I'm going to drop the rest of the message, I had all of my
arguments written out, but remembered that this is the Postgres list.  The
main point of my message was that you should stick to source or RPM,
mixing the two isn't that great.  I apologize if you took offense at my
comments.

steve




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: Compiling to RPM setup/filesystem layout
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres docs in .chm format --- is this possible?