On Friday 10 October 2003 08:52 pm, Christopher Browne wrote: > Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Nigel J. Andrews") was seen spray-painting on a wall: > > I've not looked at many RPMs but I must say that the few I have have > > never been relocatable. Can the postgresql RPMs not be made > > relocatable?
> Unfortunately, relocation would have to include the init scripts, and > that would be pretty hairy. The notion of "relocatable RPMs" came up > early in its design, but the only case where that will be particularly > usable is if the components are mostly binaries that only make > relative path references. That situation is unusual, to say the > least. I've been watching this discussion with interest (well, I _am_ the RPM maintainer, after all) and have to say that it has been thought of before. It wasn't at that time implemented due to political factors (read: the then Red Hat maintainer (@redhat.com) refused to include such support even if I had built it). But I did go through the design phase. If everyone can be patient, I'll try to go back into my archives and dig out the design doc I put together way back then. In the meantime, I'd like to hear people's ideas. As alternatives (debian-style) are fully supported in later Red Hat (and the new Fedora Core) releases, a scheme that uses alternatives would be ok. Be sure to post to the pgsql-ports list instead of pgsql-general, though. If the list server will accept it, reply-to has been set to pgsql-ports. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster