By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,835 Members | 2,305 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,835 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

RHEL

P: n/a
Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine.
Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive
updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on
RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3?

Thanks,

Darryl


Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
26 Replies


P: n/a
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 14:56, Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote:
Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine.
Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive
updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on
RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3?


Since RedHat repackage and sell PG along with some visual tools, and they
employ one of the core developers, I would be very surprised if there were
issues.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to ma*******@postgresql.org)

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote:
-->

Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running
fine. Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to
receive updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres
running on RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3?
Hello,

It will work fine. However, if you do not wish to ride the license
bandwagon of RedHat there are a couple of things to remember:

1. All updates for RHEL are made avaialable for free as src rpm's. If
you understand rpm-build (or can) it is very easy to keep
your box updated.

2. Fedora will maintain updates as well... and the above applies to
Fedora as well.

It really just depends on your needs.

Sincerely,

Joshua Drake
Thanks,

Darryl

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:56:29AM -0600, Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote:
Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine.
Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive
updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on
RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3?


I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES (I'm not sure
if it is in Advanced Server). They have the clients and dev libs,
but I don't see any hint of a server.

(If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected)

On that note, does anyone have suggestions for which version of
the server I should run? I see that there are seperate binary RPMS
for different Linux versions, but nothing for version 3 -- should I
spend some time doing a full install, building, and contributing
one, or is this not necessary?

--
Adam Haberlach | "We spent the 90's all trying to figure out
ad**@mediariffic.com | how to get email and the 00's trying to
http://mediariffic.com | figure out how to not get email."
| -- Joe Gross

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Adam Haberlach wrote:
On that note, does anyone have suggestions for which version of the
server I should run? I see that there are seperate binary RPMS for
different Linux versions, but nothing for version 3 -- should I spend some
time doing a full install, building, and contributing one, or is this not
necessary?


Adam,

While I still have a couple of Red Hat 7.3 boxes, I'm migrating to
Slackware. I have found that I have much better results by building
PostgreSQL from source than installing from rpms. It doesn't take much time
and it has always worked for me, faster and with less hassle than trying to
upgrade via the packages.

That said, I also use checkinstall (rather than 'make install') and build
the package (your choice of Slackware, Red Hat or Debian) from the source
tarball. Consider trying that.

Rich

Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President

Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
2404 SW 22nd Street | Troutdale, OR 97060-1247 | U.S.A.
+ 1 503-667-4517 (voice) | + 1 503-667-8863 (fax) | rshepard@appl-ecosys.com
http://www.appl-ecosys.com/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Nov 12 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:03:44PM -0800, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Adam Haberlach wrote:
On that note, does anyone have suggestions for which version of the
server I should run? I see that there are seperate binary RPMS for
different Linux versions, but nothing for version 3 -- should I spend some
time doing a full install, building, and contributing one, or is this not
necessary?


Adam,

While I still have a couple of Red Hat 7.3 boxes, I'm migrating to
Slackware. I have found that I have much better results by building
PostgreSQL from source than installing from rpms. It doesn't take much time
and it has always worked for me, faster and with less hassle than trying to
upgrade via the packages.


Well, we've got 50 or so customer boxes that we need to upgrade, so we
need the package management. I used to build my own from source, too,
and still do on my Solaris box, but I like being able to add and remove
things reliable. But to each their own.

--
Adam Haberlach | "We spent the 90's all trying to figure out
ad**@mediariffic.com | how to get email and the 00's trying to
http://mediariffic.com | figure out how to not get email."
| -- Joe Gross

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #6

P: n/a
Well, we've got 50 or so customer boxes that we need to upgrade, so we
need the package management. I used to build my own from source, too,
and still do on my Solaris box, but I like being able to add and remove
things reliable. But to each their own.

apt and fedora.
'
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #7

P: n/a
Adam Haberlach <ad**@newsnipple.com> writes:
I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES


Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this.

(Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's
internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres.
I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may
be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.)

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #8

P: n/a
Thanx for the update.

I almost bought RHEL WS on RH's advice, claiming that bind, dhcp and
wine were
the only packages I needed to build myself.

I downloaded and installed fedora on yesterday, and it has PG 7.3.4
server, and everything
else I need except wine. I will investigate what will be required for me
to provide wine for
fedora. I need it for my workstations at home and at work, so I can run
FileMaker Pro.

I have heard a lot of good things about gentoo, but have not checked it
out yet. At work
we have moved all our servers to FreeBSD, I am testing FreeBSD 4.9 now,
and it has
7.3.4 in the ports now as well.

PgAdmin III is now in the ports tree on FreeBSD as well, I have just
built and installed
it.

Good luck with RH

Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Haberlach <ad**@newsnipple.com> writes:

I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES


Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this.

(Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's
internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres.
I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may
be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.)

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05 #9

P: n/a

On 12/11/2003 18:13 Guy Fraser wrote:
Thanx for the update.

I almost bought RHEL WS on RH's advice, claiming that bind, dhcp and
wine were
the only packages I needed to build myself.

I downloaded and installed fedora on yesterday, and it has PG 7.3.4
server, and everything
else I need except wine. I will investigate what will be required for me
to provide wine for
fedora. I need it for my workstations at home and at work, so I can run
FileMaker Pro.


According to posts on the Fedora mailing list, the RH9 wine rpm from
Sourceforge works ok on fedora.

HTH

--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 11:57 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Haberlach <ad**@newsnipple.com> writes:
I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES
Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this. (Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's
internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres.
I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may
be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.)


The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does
RHEL3 not include this package?
--
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 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

Nov 12 '05 #11

P: n/a
So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to
be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what
happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here.

Craig

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 11:57 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
Adam Haberlach <ad**@newsnipple.com> writes:
I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES

Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this.

(Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's
internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres.
I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may
be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.)


The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does
RHEL3 not include this package?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to ma*******@postgresql.org)

Nov 12 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to
be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what
happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here.


It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java,
open-sourced) and some support for your money.

http://sources.redhat.com/rhdb/

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

Nov 12 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 11:52 pm, Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to
be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what
happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here.


Tom Lane is in a better position to answer that, but I understand that things
have realigned somewhat. The package is known as 'rh-postgresql' and has
some 'enhancements' of some sort. The graphical tools are nice, and are open
source.

Tom Lane was indeed hired by Red Hat, and he is a core developer. The tenor
of his last message would seem to imply some friction there; I hope I'm just
misunderstanding.
--
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 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to
be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what
happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here.


It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java,
open-sourced) and some support for your money.


That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow,
that's impressive.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Por suerte hoy explotó el califont porque si no me habría muerto
de aburrido" (Papelucho)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Thursday 13 November 2003 11:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going
to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain
what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here.


It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java,
open-sourced) and some support for your money.


That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow,
that's impressive.


We are somewhat spoilt in the PG community as regards prompt attention from
the core developers (and Tom in particular).

On the other hand, if I was paying for support, I can't think of anyone else
I'd rather get a response from.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #16

P: n/a
Lamar Owen <lo***@pari.edu> writes:
The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does
RHEL3 not include this package?


I have not actually installed RHEL3 to check, but my understanding is
that it's not there. There was a last-minute decision taken to pull
PG and MySQL from the base distribution with the intent of packaging
them as a separate "layered product". Latest word is that that plan
is off again, leaving us (RH) with no open-source database support
and lots of egg on our faces. So yeah, I'm a bit annoyed. I suppose
some RHEL3 packages will emerge from the mess eventually, but I don't
know exactly how or when.

I think it's important for the powers-that-be to realize that they are
not messing around with unimportant software that no one uses. Thus
my encouragement to people to send in complaints.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #17

P: n/a
Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2003 11:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
> So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going
> to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain
> what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here.

It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java,
open-sourced) and some support for your money.


That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow,
that's impressive.


We are somewhat spoilt in the PG community as regards prompt attention from
the core developers (and Tom in particular).

On the other hand, if I was paying for support, I can't think of anyone else
I'd rather get a response from.


Commercial support is good when you have a tough problem that requires
lots of digging, and the support guys will do the digging for you.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pg***@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Nov 12 '05 #18

P: n/a
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and
compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something?
(We are about to install 3.0, so I would really like to know..)
BTJ

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 16:08, Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen <lo***@pari.edu> writes:
The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does
RHEL3 not include this package?


I have not actually installed RHEL3 to check, but my understanding is
that it's not there. There was a last-minute decision taken to pull
PG and MySQL from the base distribution with the intent of packaging
them as a separate "layered product". Latest word is that that plan
is off again, leaving us (RH) with no open-source database support
and lots of egg on our faces. So yeah, I'm a bit annoyed. I suppose
some RHEL3 packages will emerge from the mess eventually, but I don't
know exactly how or when.

I think it's important for the powers-that-be to realize that they are
not messing around with unimportant software that no one uses. Thus
my encouragement to people to send in complaints.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #19

P: n/a
Can I get a support contract directly from the developers instead of going
through redhat?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Momjian" <pg***@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: "Richard Huxton" <de*@archonet.com>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <al******@dcc.uchile.cl>; "Craig O'Shannessy"
<cr***@ucw.com.au>; "Lamar Owen" <lo***@pari.edu>;
<pg***********@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] RHEL

Richard Huxton wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2003 11:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
> > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going > > to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain > > what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. >
> It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java, > open-sourced) and some support for your money.

That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow, that's impressive.
We are somewhat spoilt in the PG community as regards prompt attention from the core developers (and Tom in particular).

On the other hand, if I was paying for support, I can't think of anyone else I'd rather get a response from.


Commercial support is good when you have a tough problem that requires
lots of digging, and the support guys will do the digging for you.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pg***@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania

19073
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #20

P: n/a
Rick Gigger wrote:
Can I get a support contract directly from the developers instead of going
through redhat?


I don't think you can contract a Red Hat-employed developer directly,
but there are other PostgreSQL support companies around.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pg***@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #21

P: n/a
Bjørn T Johansen writes:
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and
compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something?


Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you.

--
Peter Eisentraut pe*****@gmx.net
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 12 '05 #22

P: n/a
Rick Gigger writes:
Can I get a support contract directly from the developers instead of going
through redhat?


You are welcome to seek support on the user mailing lists of PostgreSQL.
If you need something more binding, there are many companies that offer
commercial support, independent of the operating system you use.

--
Peter Eisentraut pe*****@gmx.net
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #23

P: n/a
Well, I have never seen any advantages in a package system... :)
As a developer, I like having full control of what I compile....
BTJ

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bjørn T Johansen writes:
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and
compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something?


Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #24

P: n/a
Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and
compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something?
(We are about to install 3.0, so I would really like to know..)

In fact there are some reasons *to* do this :

- compiler optimizations specific for your platform
- add or remove configurable options from the build

Ps : and in principle, the whole *point* of having an open source
product is the freedom to get the source and build it yourself :-)

Just 2c

Mark


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 12 '05 #25

P: n/a
but with source packages that's exactly what you get. Download source
RPM, configure things like CFLAGS, build your package, and you've got
exactly what you want in a very portable format.

I'm a build it from tar.bz kinda guy too, but sometimes you need packages
to make TPTB happy, or to keep from having to compile the database on 20
different machines.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
Well, I have never seen any advantages in a package system... :)
As a developer, I like having full control of what I compile....
BTJ

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bjørn T Johansen writes:
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and
compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something?


Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Nov 12 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Friday 14 November 2003 01:19, Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
Well, I have never seen any advantages in a package system... :)
As a developer, I like having full control of what I compile....
BTJ

On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Bjørn T Johansen writes:
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source
and compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something?


Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you.


Use checkinstall. Best of both worlds. It is still short of a well built
package but in general far better than just a source compile..

Shridhar
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 12 '05 #27

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.