Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522
------- Additional Comments From tgl(a)redhat.com 2007-08-27 15:04 EST -------
Trying to conflict with just one subpackage of the postgresql group seems like a pretty
bad idea. For
example, the PL and -test subpackages Require: postgresql-server, which would mean
you'd have to
duplicate those as se-specific versions. (Which maybe you have to do anyway, for the PLs
... are they
going to be binary-compatible? What about postgresql-contrib?)
Using alternatives is a possibility, but I'm not real excited about it because of its
invasive effects on the
regular postgresql package. I've also been reminded the hard way recently that RPM is
not good about
package upgrades that involve replacing files/directories with symlinks or vice versa;
I'm afraid we'd hit
one of those gotchas while trying to upgrade a postgresql installation into an
alternatives-based setup.
I don't see the reason why you can't make it install parallel files with different
names (sepostgres etc).
The argument that some error messages include the program name seems a bit silly, and
it's been
awhile since there were any hard dependencies on the executable name.
Rather than Conflicts: postgresql-server, I wonder whether you shouldn't be trying to
Require:
postgresql-server = %{version} so that you can share whichever files are in common,
instead of
shipping duplicates.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.