Update FAQ_DEV.
This commit is contained in:
Bruce Momjian
parent
07c3f00b14
commit
b7ca9a9403
|
|
@ -51,6 +51,7 @@
|
|||
<A href="#12">12</A>) How do I add a new port?<BR>
|
||||
<A href="#13">13</A>) What is CommandCounterIncrement()?<BR>
|
||||
<A href="#14">14</A>) Why don't we use threads in the backend?<BR>
|
||||
<A href="#15">15</A>) How are RPM's packaged?<BR>
|
||||
<BR>
|
||||
|
||||
<HR>
|
||||
|
|
@ -68,7 +69,8 @@
|
|||
ccsym find standard defines made by your compiler
|
||||
entab converts tabs to spaces, used by pgindent
|
||||
find_static finds functions that could be made static
|
||||
find_typedef get a list of typedefs in the source code
|
||||
find_typedef finds a list of typedefs in the source code
|
||||
find_badmacros finds macros that use braces incorrectly
|
||||
make_ctags make vi 'tags' file in each directory
|
||||
make_diff make *.orig and diffs of source
|
||||
make_etags make emacs 'etags' files
|
||||
|
|
@ -539,6 +541,99 @@
|
|||
|
||||
<LI>The backend code would be more complex.</LI>
|
||||
</UL>
|
||||
|
||||
<H3><A name="15">15</A>) How are RPM's packaged?</H3>
|
||||
|
||||
<P>This is from Lamar Owen:</P>
|
||||
<PRE>
|
||||
As to how the RPMs are built -- to answer that question sanely requires
|
||||
me to know how much experience you have with the whole RPM paradigm.
|
||||
'How is the RPM built?' is a multifaceted question. The obvious simple
|
||||
answer is that I maintain:
|
||||
1.) A set of patches to make certain portions of the source
|
||||
tree 'behave' in the different environment of the RPMset;
|
||||
2.) The initscript;
|
||||
3.) Any other ancilliary scripts and files;
|
||||
4.) A README.rpm-dist document that tries to adequately document
|
||||
both the differences between the RPM build and the WHY of the
|
||||
differences, as well as useful RPM environment operations
|
||||
(like, using syslog, upgrading, getting postmaster to
|
||||
start at OS boot, etc);
|
||||
5.) The spec file that throws it all together. This is not a
|
||||
trivial undertaking in a package of this size.
|
||||
|
||||
I then download and build on as many different canonical distributions
|
||||
as I can -- currently I am able to build on Red Hat 6.2, 7.0, and 7.1 on
|
||||
my personal hardware. Occasionally I receive opportunity from certain
|
||||
commercial enterprises such as Great Bridge and PostgreSQL Inc to build
|
||||
on other distributions.
|
||||
|
||||
I test the build by installing the resulting packages and running the
|
||||
regression tests. Once the build passes these tests, I upload to the
|
||||
postgresql.org ftp server and make a release announcement. I am also
|
||||
responsible for maintaining the RPM download area on the ftp site.
|
||||
|
||||
You'll notice I said 'canonical' distributions above. That simply means
|
||||
that the machine is as stock 'out of the box' as practical -- that is,
|
||||
everything (except select few programs) on these boxen are installed by
|
||||
RPM; only official Red Hat released RPMs are used (except in unusual
|
||||
circumstances involving software that will not alter the build -- for
|
||||
example, installing a newer non-RedHat version of the Dia diagramming
|
||||
package is OK -- installing Python 2.1 on the box that has Python 1.5.2
|
||||
installed is not, as that alters the PostgreSQL build). The RPM as
|
||||
uploaded is built to as close to out-of-the-box pristine as is
|
||||
possible. Only the standard released 'official to that release'
|
||||
compiler is used -- and only the standard official kernel is used as
|
||||
well.
|
||||
|
||||
For a time I built on Mandrake for RedHat consumption -- no more.
|
||||
Nonstandard RPM building systems are worse than useless. Which is not
|
||||
to say that Mandrake is useless! By no means is Mandrake useless --
|
||||
unless you are building Red Hat RPMs -- and Red Hat is useless if you're
|
||||
trying to build Mandrake or SuSE RPMs, for that matter. But I would be
|
||||
foolish to use 'Lamar Owen's Super Special RPM Blend Distro 0.1.2' to
|
||||
build for public consumption! :-)
|
||||
|
||||
I _do_ attempt to make the _source_ RPM compatible with as many
|
||||
distributions as possible -- however, since I have limited resources (as
|
||||
a volunteer RPM maintainer) I am limited as to the amount of testing
|
||||
said build will get on other distributions, architectures, or systems.
|
||||
|
||||
And, while I understand people's desire to immediately upgrade to the
|
||||
newest version, realize that I do this as a side interest -- I have a
|
||||
regular, full-time job as a broadcast
|
||||
engineer/webmaster/sysadmin/Technical Director which occasionally
|
||||
prevents me from making timely RPM releases. This happened during the
|
||||
early part of the 7.1 beta cycle -- but I believe I was pretty much on
|
||||
the ball for the Release Candidates and the final release.
|
||||
|
||||
I am working towards a more open RPM distribution -- I would dearly love
|
||||
to more fully document the process and put everything into CVS -- once I
|
||||
figure out how I want to represent things such as the spec file in a CVS
|
||||
form. It makes no sense to maintain a changelog, for instance, in the
|
||||
spec file in CVS when CVS does a better job of changelogs -- I will need
|
||||
to write a tool to generate a real spec file from a CVS spec-source file
|
||||
that would add version numbers, changelog entries, etc to the result
|
||||
before building the RPM. IOW, I need to rethink the process -- and then
|
||||
go through the motions of putting my long RPM history into CVS one
|
||||
version at a time so that version history information isn't lost.
|
||||
|
||||
As to why all these files aren't part of the source tree, well, unless
|
||||
there was a large cry for it to happen, I don't believe it should.
|
||||
PostgreSQL is very platform-agnostic -- and I like that. Including the
|
||||
RPM stuff as part of the Official Tarball (TM) would, IMHO, slant that
|
||||
agnostic stance in a negative way. But maybe I'm too sensitive to
|
||||
that. I'm not opposed to doing that if that is the consensus of the
|
||||
core group -- and that would be a sneaky way to get the stuff into CVS
|
||||
:-). But if the core group isn't thrilled with the idea (and my
|
||||
instinct says they're not likely to be), I am opposed to the idea -- not
|
||||
to keep the stuff to myself, but to not hinder the platform-neutral
|
||||
stance. IMHO, of course.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course, there are many projects that DO include all the files
|
||||
necessary to build RPMs from their Official Tarball (TM).
|
||||
</PRE>
|
||||
|
||||
</BODY>
|
||||
</HTML>
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue