On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 11:36, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday 20 November 2003 06:29 pm, David Jee wrote:
> This update replaces the current series of 'postgresql' packages in
> Fedora with an improved set of packages that was formerly called
> 'rh-postgresql'. rh-postgresql was a part of RHDB, and it is now being
> integrated into Fedora Core. rh-postgresql includes bug fixes and
> performance enhancements which are backported from the upstream
> development branch.
Oh, this is nice. I'd like to get the improvements, GUI, JDBC etc into the
upstream packages, possibly. I _like_ the RHDB tools.
FYI, the GUI tools will not be integrated into Fedora Core at this
present time. Our latest GUI tools depend on a proprietary JVM that
implements AWT and Swing, so they are not eligible for inclusion in
Fedora. We hope that we will eventually be able to compile and run them
against libgcj, at which point we can integrate them into Fedora.
However, the GUI tools will be available via sources.redhat.com/rhdb
very soon. We are also planning on setting up a yum-repository for all
I want to mention two things about the rh-postgresql packages. The
first is that the backported patches in rh-postgresql are actually
rolled into a giant 7.2M patch, which is a diff between the pristine
7.3.4 branch and our own branch that contains the backports. IIRC, the
reason why it's so big is the difference in the RCS headers between Red
Hat's repository and postgresql's repository. The differences are
trivial, but we couldn't find a safe way of filtering out these
differences, so we decided to just leave them there. I don't think it's
a problem, but just wanted to give you a heads-up.
Another thing I'm wondering is whether it would be worthwhile to keep a
pristine set of upstream postgresql packages. For example, if for some
reason something fails in the "rh-postgresql" set of packages, one can
go back to the "postgresql" set of packages and see where the problem
is. What do you think about this?