Re: [Pgsqlrpms-hackers] Antw: Re: 8.3beta2 fails to compile on Centos5 x86_64

[Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com>]

Hi,

On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 10:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > After I have installed these, everything now works perfectly.
> 
> Interesting.  We don't do any C++ stuff, so I would hope that the
> first two of those are irrelevant.  

Exactly.

> redhat-rpm-config, however, might well be relevant.  I remember Devrim
> running into an odd build failure on a machine where it wasn't
> installed.

Yes. All Fedora clones that are < 7 (CentOS 4,5 , RHEL 4,5 and Fedora
<=6) have this problem.

I have filed a bug report against this, and here is the reply (and bug
was closed)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=355551

This is definitely a bug, but since this package is a must for building
packages (see below), there is nothing we can do.

> I wonder if it'd be worth explicitly BuildRequire'ing
> redhat-rpm-config in the PGDG SRPM?  I don't feel the need to do it in
> Fedora/RHEL, because as mentioned there's an explicit policy not to
> for those projects.  But it seems the PGDG RPMs get rebuilt in a
> rather wider variety of environments.

I did not add it since redhat-rpm-config is a must per:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-4cadce5e79d38a63cad3941de1dadc9d25d67d30-2

(Of course I don't have to stick to Fedora guidelines for PGDG RPMs, but
still...)

But we can mention about that in README, etc.

Regards,
-- 
Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part