Horton
Menu

Thread

  1. RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-06T14:55:21Z

    For those that want to get in before the rush, I'm going to do an announce
this evenin to -general and -announce ...

Vince, can you make appropriate changes to the WebSite as far as linking
to it is concerned, so that the mirrors pick up the new links also?

Thanks ..

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

  2. Re: RC3 ...

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-04-06T16:21:24Z

    It looks like you wrapped the intermediate (broken) state of
interfaces/odbc/convert.c that Hiroshi had in there for a few hours.
Dunno if this is important enough to re-wrap RC3 for; it might affect
a few ODBC users ...

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: RC3 ...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-06T16:28:17Z

    Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> It looks like you wrapped the intermediate (broken) state of
> interfaces/odbc/convert.c that Hiroshi had in there for a few hours.
> Dunno if this is important enough to re-wrap RC3 for; it might affect
> a few ODBC users ...

Just as I was getting ready to upload a quickie RC3 RPMset... :-)
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  4. Re: RC3 ...

    Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2001-04-06T16:58:29Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

>
> For those that want to get in before the rush, I'm going to do an announce
> this evenin to -general and -announce ...
>
> Vince, can you make appropriate changes to the WebSite as far as linking
> to it is concerned, so that the mirrors pick up the new links also?

Does it look like this it gonna be the one?  It's stable and all that?
Once it's on the website no matter what moniker it's got (up to and
including "DANGER THIS IS BROKEN SO DON'T USE IT") it will be viewed
as the golden apple so I want to avoid another full mailbox.  I'll
probably wait till tomorrow evening (if you announce tonite) just to
be sure.

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

  5. Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-06T17:19:23Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> >
> > For those that want to get in before the rush, I'm going to do an announce
> > this evenin to -general and -announce ...
> >
> > Vince, can you make appropriate changes to the WebSite as far as linking
> > to it is concerned, so that the mirrors pick up the new links also?
>
> Does it look like this it gonna be the one?  It's stable and all that?
> Once it's on the website no matter what moniker it's got (up to and
> including "DANGER THIS IS BROKEN SO DON'T USE IT") it will be viewed
> as the golden apple so I want to avoid another full mailbox.  I'll
> probably wait till tomorrow evening (if you announce tonite) just to
> be sure.

baring any major blow ups, the only thing we are waiting on is docs ...

  6. Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-06T17:38:05Z

    The Hermit Hacker writes:

> baring any major blow ups, the only thing we are waiting on is docs ...

The docs are ready for shipment.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  7. Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-06T17:45:56Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker writes:
>
> > baring any major blow ups, the only thing we are waiting on is docs ...
>
> The docs are ready for shipment.

Even better ...

Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week, as soon as someone
makes a change, I'll do up a new RC# that night ... if we can get a nice
quiet period where nobody pops up with "just one more thing", let's try
for a release for next Friday ... *cross fingers* *grin*

  8. Re: RC3 ...

    Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2001-04-06T18:09:54Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > The Hermit Hacker writes:
> >
> > > baring any major blow ups, the only thing we are waiting on is docs ...
> >
> > The docs are ready for shipment.
>
> Even better ...
>
> Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week, as soon as someone
> makes a change, I'll do up a new RC# that night ... if we can get a nice
> quiet period where nobody pops up with "just one more thing", let's try
> for a release for next Friday ... *cross fingers* *grin*

So does RC3 have the docs and the odbc thing mentioned earlier rolled
in?

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

  9. Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-06T18:41:57Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > > The Hermit Hacker writes:
> > >
> > > > baring any major blow ups, the only thing we are waiting on is docs ...
> > >
> > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> >
> > Even better ...
> >
> > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week, as soon as someone
> > makes a change, I'll do up a new RC# that night ... if we can get a nice
> > quiet period where nobody pops up with "just one more thing", let's try
> > for a release for next Friday ... *cross fingers* *grin*
>
> So does RC3 have the docs and the odbc thing mentioned earlier rolled
> in?

Yes, just re-bundled it ...

  10. Re: RC3 ...

    Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2001-04-06T19:40:05Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Hermit Hacker writes:
> > > >
> > > > > baring any major blow ups, the only thing we are waiting on is docs ...
> > > >
> > > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > >
> > > Even better ...
> > >
> > > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week, as soon as someone
> > > makes a change, I'll do up a new RC# that night ... if we can get a nice
> > > quiet period where nobody pops up with "just one more thing", let's try
> > > for a release for next Friday ... *cross fingers* *grin*
> >
> > So does RC3 have the docs and the odbc thing mentioned earlier rolled
> > in?
>
> Yes, just re-bundled it ...

Cool!

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

  11. Re: RC3 ...

    Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 2001-04-06T20:45:45Z

    > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> Even better ...
> Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...

I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(

Lamar, do you plan to continue to package the hardcopy somewhere in the
RPMs? If so, I'll have them ready soon.

                    - Thomas

  12. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-06T21:51:21Z

    Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
 
> Lamar, do you plan to continue to package the hardcopy somewhere in the
> RPMs? If so, I'll have them ready soon.

I didn't for 7.0, IIRC.  Or maybe I did for 7.0, but then didn't for
7.0.2? I'll have to go back to the changelog.... 

I am open to suggestion -- should it be part of the main postgresql RPM
with the source and html docs, or should it be a separate package, such
as postgresql-hardcopy-docs? Ideas?  Comments?

The 'Internals' document is still in the main package, FWIW.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  13. Re: RC3 ...

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2001-04-06T21:56:20Z

    > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> >
> > For those that want to get in before the rush, I'm going to do an announce
> > this evenin to -general and -announce ...
> >
> > Vince, can you make appropriate changes to the WebSite as far as linking
> > to it is concerned, so that the mirrors pick up the new links also?
> 
> Does it look like this it gonna be the one?  It's stable and all that?
> Once it's on the website no matter what moniker it's got (up to and
> including "DANGER THIS IS BROKEN SO DON'T USE IT") it will be viewed
> as the golden apple so I want to avoid another full mailbox.  I'll
> probably wait till tomorrow evening (if you announce tonite) just to
> be sure.

Smart man, that Vince.  :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  14. Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-06T23:19:00Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > Even better ...
> > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
>
> I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(

At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
.. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...

  15. Re: RC3 ...

    Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2001-04-06T23:41:25Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > > Even better ...
> > > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
> >
> > I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> > is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
>
> At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
> standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
> to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
> .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...

We may already do so, but include the upgrade instructions, first time
install instructions and basic startup.  Then bundle the docs as they
normally come in the tarball as a separate set (alone).   A number of
other packages are done this way.  If we want to include a be-all-end-all
we can do that too.  Of course other doc formats/sets will also be
available.

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

  16. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2001-04-06T23:43:32Z

    > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > > Even better ...
> > > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
> >
> > I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> > is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
> 
> At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
> standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
> to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
> .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...

Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too?  No need to include that,
I think.  The web site has nice links to it now.  Uncompressed it is
1.314 megs.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  17. Re: RC3 ...

    Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 2001-04-06T23:49:59Z

    > > OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
> > tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
> > distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
> > doc sources are part of the source distribution...

From the get-go, the docs were not, uh, useful docs. They have grown
quite a bit from 1996 (with sources and formatting, probably by orders
of magnitude).

                      - Thomas

  18. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-07T00:01:30Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >
> > > > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > > > Even better ...
> > > > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
> > >
> > > I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> > > is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
> >
> > At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
> > standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
> > to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
> > .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...
>
> Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too?  No need to include that,
> I think.  The web site has nice links to it now.  Uncompressed it is
> 1.314 megs.

Definitely, I think TODO.detail should be refer'd to by the TODO file, but
not included in the distribution itself ...

  19. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-04-07T00:09:05Z

    >> At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
>> standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
>> to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
>> .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...

> Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too?  No need to include that,
> I think.  The web site has nice links to it now.  Uncompressed it is
> 1.314 megs.

That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things.  Not everyone
has an always-on high-speed Internet link.

If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
split distribution, that's fine with me.  But I don't agree with
removing them from the full tarball.

OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
doc sources are part of the source distribution...

			regards, tom lane

  20. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2001-04-07T00:19:47Z

    > > Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too?  No need to include that,
> > I think.  The web site has nice links to it now.  Uncompressed it is
> > 1.314 megs.
> 
> That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things.  Not everyone
> has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
> 
> If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
> split distribution, that's fine with me.  But I don't agree with
> removing them from the full tarball.

But isn't TODO.detail mostly of interest to people who use CVS?
I see your point, though.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  21. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-07T00:40:50Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> >> At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
> >> standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
> >> to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
> >> .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...
>
> > Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too?  No need to include that,
> > I think.  The web site has nice links to it now.  Uncompressed it is
> > 1.314 megs.
>
> That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things.  Not everyone
> has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
>
> If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
> split distribution, that's fine with me.  But I don't agree with
> removing them from the full tarball.
>
> OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
> tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
> distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
> doc sources are part of the source distribution...

But, why?  That sounds like a highly DSL-centric view of things *grin*  If
someone really wants docs, what hurts a second GET ftp call?

  22. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2001-04-07T01:25:15Z

    > > That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things.  Not everyone
> > has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
> >
> > If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
> > split distribution, that's fine with me.  But I don't agree with
> > removing them from the full tarball.
> >
> > OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
> > tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
> > distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
> > doc sources are part of the source distribution...
> 
> But, why?  That sounds like a highly DSL-centric view of things *grin*  If
> someone really wants docs, what hurts a second GET ftp call?

A major issue is that we don't regenerate docs for 7.1.1 or later, so
the 7.1 docs carry for all the 7.1.X releases.  That would seem to argue
for a separate tarball for docs so people don't redownload the docs
again for 7.1.1.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  23. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-07T02:08:24Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > > That strikes me as an awfully web-centric view of things.  Not everyone
> > > has an always-on high-speed Internet link.
> > >
> > > If you want to make the docs and TODO.detail be a separate chunk of the
> > > split distribution, that's fine with me.  But I don't agree with
> > > removing them from the full tarball.
> > >
> > > OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
> > > tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
> > > distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
> > > doc sources are part of the source distribution...
> >
> > But, why?  That sounds like a highly DSL-centric view of things *grin*  If
> > someone really wants docs, what hurts a second GET ftp call?
>
> A major issue is that we don't regenerate docs for 7.1.1 or later, so
> the 7.1 docs carry for all the 7.1.X releases.  That would seem to argue
> for a separate tarball for docs so people don't redownload the docs
> again for 7.1.1.

Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
docs has to be included as part of the main tar file, I'm going to change
the distributin generating script so that it generates a .src.tar.gz file
seperate from the .doc.tar.gz file, which will make .src.tar.gz ~6Meg
instead of the 8meg we are currently forcing ppl to download ...

Peter E, is there anything part of the configure/make procedure that
*requires* pgsql/doc to be there else it will break?  If so, can you
possibly put it as a test "if docs exists, deal with it, else ignore"?

  24. Re: Re: RC3 ... and rpms...

    Franck Martin <franck@sopac.org> — 2001-04-07T02:47:27Z

    I have no idea if what I say is true about the PG distribution by PG people, but
I have noticed than in the rpms of other distros the postgresql-devel rpms do not
include all the .h files necessary to build PG extensions. For instance the
rtree.h and itup.h and gist.h headers are missing. Could you please ensure that
all the headers are taken into account when you write your spec file.

May be also in the tar.gz or tar.bz2 distribution (bz2 is more effective than gz
and available on all platforms) you add a developer file that list all the
required headers, so that package builders know which files to include.

It seems that the rpm distributions will go as:
postgresql
postgresql-docs (user and manager docs)
postgresql-devel (header files and developper docs)

Cheers.
Franck@sopac.org

  25. Re: Re: RC3 ... and rpms...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-07T11:59:39Z

    Franck Martin wrote:
> I have no idea if what I say is true about the PG distribution by PG people, but
> I have noticed than in the rpms of other distros the postgresql-devel rpms do not
> include all the .h files necessary to build PG extensions. For instance the
> rtree.h and itup.h and gist.h headers are missing. Could you please ensure that
> all the headers are taken into account when you write your spec file.

The RPMs now (as of 7.1beta4) use the 'make install-all-headers'
incantation to generate the development headers.  If this doesn't get
the headers you need, then install-all-headers needsto be modified to
really install ALL headers.

With my latest RC3 RPM's (which I am preparing to upload to the
PostgreSQL ftp server sometime this morning, once I get some other
reorganization done and some contrib stuff built), I get the following
results:

[root@utility i386]# rpm -ql postgresql-devel|grep gist
/usr/include/pgsql/access/gist.h
/usr/include/pgsql/access/gistscan.h
/usr/include/pgsql/access/giststrat.h
[root@utility i386]# rpm -ql postgresql-devel|grep rtree
/usr/include/pgsql/access/rtree.h
[root@utility i386]# rpm -ql postgresql-devel|grep itup
/usr/include/pgsql/access/itup.h
[root@utility i386]#

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  26. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-07T12:04:30Z

    Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > > OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
> > > tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
> > > distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
> > > doc sources are part of the source distribution...
> 
> >From the get-go, the docs were not, uh, useful docs. They have grown
> quite a bit from 1996 (with sources and formatting, probably by orders
> of magnitude).

Today's docs make even the docs of version 6.1.1 look pretty puny.

I'm looking at the package reorganization for the RPM's this morning --
we'll see what I find in a few hours.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  27. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-07T12:09:55Z

    The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
> docs has to be included as part of the main tar file, I'm going to change
> the distributin generating script so that it generates a .src.tar.gz file
> seperate from the .doc.tar.gz file, which will make .src.tar.gz ~6Meg
> instead of the 8meg we are currently forcing ppl to download ...

> Peter E, is there anything part of the configure/make procedure that
> *requires* pgsql/doc to be there else it will break?  If so, can you
> possibly put it as a test "if docs exists, deal with it, else ignore"?

We're going to do this at this point in the release cycle?  IOW, is
there going to be an RC4 with this new packaging, or is the first-off
tarball with new packaging going to be the *final* 7.1 release *raised
eyebrow*?

I am certainly NOT opposed to doing this -- just questioning the timing.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  28. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-07T13:39:46Z

    On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
> > docs has to be included as part of the main tar file, I'm going to change
> > the distributin generating script so that it generates a .src.tar.gz file
> > seperate from the .doc.tar.gz file, which will make .src.tar.gz ~6Meg
> > instead of the 8meg we are currently forcing ppl to download ...
>
> > Peter E, is there anything part of the configure/make procedure that
> > *requires* pgsql/doc to be there else it will break?  If so, can you
> > possibly put it as a test "if docs exists, deal with it, else ignore"?
>
> We're going to do this at this point in the release cycle?  IOW, is
> there going to be an RC4 with this new packaging, or is the first-off
> tarball with new packaging going to be the *final* 7.1 release *raised
> eyebrow*?

there will be an RC4, I'm just waiting to hear back from Peter E as to
whether there is anything in the build process we even risk breaking ...
we've been doing the whole split thing for the past release or two as it
is (the FreeBSD ports collection using the individual packages instead of
the great big one) so from a packaging perspective, its well tested ...

  29. Re: Re: RC3 ... and rpms...

    Karl DeBisschop <karl@debisschop.net> — 2001-04-07T13:49:03Z

    Franck Martin wrote:
> 
> I have no idea if what I say is true about the PG distribution by PG people, but
> I have noticed than in the rpms of other distros the postgresql-devel rpms do not
> include all the .h files necessary to build PG extensions. For instance the
> rtree.h and itup.h and gist.h headers are missing. Could you please ensure that
> all the headers are taken into account when you write your spec file.
> 
> May be also in the tar.gz or tar.bz2 distribution (bz2 is more effective than gz
> and available on all platforms) you add a developer file that list all the
> required headers, so that package builders know which files to include.

In my experience so far, it is also noticably slower than gzip. It does
work, and it is available. I have not yet been convinced that the space
savings is worth the time lost. But ISTM this is a minor point.

> It seems that the rpm distributions will go as:
> postgresql
> postgresql-docs (user and manager docs)
> postgresql-devel (header files and developper docs)

Actually, since you can suppress installation of the docs with --nodocs,
I would very much prefer to keep the html and text docs in the main RPM.
Otherwise I have two directories in /usr/doc for one software suite.

The 'hard copy' docs can go whereever they want as far as I'm concerned,
since I typically have little use for paper these days.

Of course, these are only my preferences, but it seems unlikely that the
assertions above are universally accepted  either.

-- 
Karl DeBisschop

  30. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-07T13:56:04Z

    The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> there will be an RC4, I'm just waiting to hear back from Peter E as to

Good.

> whether there is anything in the build process we even risk breaking ...
> we've been doing the whole split thing for the past release or two as it
> is (the FreeBSD ports collection using the individual packages instead of
> the great big one) so from a packaging perspective, its well tested ...

Just not well-tested for the RPM build environment :-).
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  31. Re: Re: RC3 ... and rpms...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-07T14:03:39Z

    Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> In my experience so far, it is also noticably slower than gzip. It does
> work, and it is available. I have not yet been convinced that the space
> savings is worth the time lost. But ISTM this is a minor point.

The official tarball is gzipped -- the RPM will use that until bzipped
tarballs are official.
 
> Actually, since you can suppress installation of the docs with --nodocs,
> I would very much prefer to keep the html and text docs in the main RPM.
> Otherwise I have two directories in /usr/doc for one software suite.

The html docs at the very least will remain in the main package.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  32. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-07T14:11:17Z

    On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > there will be an RC4, I'm just waiting to hear back from Peter E as to
>
> Good.
>
> > whether there is anything in the build process we even risk breaking ...
> > we've been doing the whole split thing for the past release or two as it
> > is (the FreeBSD ports collection using the individual packages instead of
> > the great big one) so from a packaging perspective, its well tested ...
>
> Just not well-tested for the RPM build environment :-).

Ya, but you could concievably test that now, without us doign an RC4 ..
the files are all there :)

  33. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-07T14:44:53Z

    The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Just not well-tested for the RPM build environment :-).
 
> Ya, but you could concievably test that now, without us doign an RC4 ..
> the files are all there :)

So the structure isn't going to change -- just there's not going to be a
'whole thing' tarball anymore?  I am now confyoozzled.... :-)  If
there's still going to be a 'whole thing' tarball, I don't need to
change much.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  34. Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:18:25Z

    Thomas Lockhart writes:

> > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > Even better ...
> > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
>
> I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(

I'm not speaking about "allowed", I'm merely talking about the state of
affairs since 7.0.  If people think that the postscript format should be
in the main tarball, then why not, but IIRC this question was raised last
time around and the decision went the other way.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  35. Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:24:10Z

    The Hermit Hacker writes:

> At 2Meg, is there a reason why we include any of the docs as part of the
> standard tar ball?  It shouldn't be required to compile, so should be able
> to be left out of the main tar ball and downloaded seperately as required
> .. thereby shrinking the distribution to <6Meg from its current 8 ...

For that purpose you introduced the split distribution.  If there is any
good reason for it, it's this.  Currently, the .docs sub-tarball contains
the entire doc/ subtree, the consequence of which is that this tarball is
required for a functioning installation.  If we were to change this split
so that doc/src/ is a separate sub-tarball, then that one could be purely
optional and you could tell people that they don't need it unless they
want to write documentation.

However, removing any part of the documentation, built or source, from the
full tarball seems like a really bad idea.  It breaks the fundamental
principle behind a "full tarball".  The resulting confusion would be
enormous.  Especially now that we seems to start getting some outside
documentation contributors.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  36. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:25:22Z

    Bruce Momjian writes:

> Can we drop TODO.detail from the tarball too?  No need to include that,
> I think.  The web site has nice links to it now.  Uncompressed it is
> 1.314 megs.

You see where this discussion goes?  Do we want to go through each file
and argue whether it needs to be distributed?  If you're in that kind of
mood then you should use a binary package.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  37. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:26:37Z

    Tom Lane writes:

> OTOH, if Marc was only thinking of removing the pre-built docs from the
> tarball, I don't object to that.  I'm not sure why those weren't
> distributed as separate tarballs from the get-go.  I just say that the
> doc sources are part of the source distribution...

Why would you want to remove the pre-built docs from the tarball and ship
the sources?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  38. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:29:24Z

    The Hermit Hacker writes:

> Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
> docs has to be included as part of the main tar file,

Because people want to read the documentation.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  39. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:30:37Z

    Bruce Momjian writes:

> A major issue is that we don't regenerate docs for 7.1.1 or later, so

Sure we do.

> the 7.1 docs carry for all the 7.1.X releases.  That would seem to argue
> for a separate tarball for docs so people don't redownload the docs
> again for 7.1.1.
>
>

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  40. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T17:33:38Z

    Lamar Owen writes:

> We're going to do this at this point in the release cycle?  IOW, is
> there going to be an RC4 with this new packaging, or is the first-off
> tarball with new packaging going to be the *final* 7.1 release *raised
> eyebrow*?
>
> I am certainly NOT opposed to doing this -- just questioning the timing.

I'm also questioning the timing and I am undoubtedly opposed to this.
We're talking about butchering up the released distribution less than a
week before publication.  We had a year to discuss this and various
questions about how to handle documentation building, distributions, and
installation were raised during that time.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  41. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-04-07T17:34:28Z

    On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker writes:
>
> > Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
> > docs has to be included as part of the main tar file,
>
> Because people want to read the documentation.

get postgresql.src.tar.gz
get postgresql.docs.tar.gz

instead of just

get postgresql.tar.gz

for those that want to download the docs, same amount of time ... for
those that don't want it, it sames them 2meg of download time ...

I'm curious as to how many ppl would actually download those docs ... I
know that I'd never do so, as I'm never on the same machine that the
server is running from, so just hit the web site ...

so, for those that do, we are giving them one extra step, and for those
that don't, saving them time and bandwidth ...

  42. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T18:10:05Z

    The Hermit Hacker writes:

> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > The Hermit Hacker writes:
> >
> > > Okay, unless someone can come up with a really good argument *for* why
> > > docs has to be included as part of the main tar file,
> >
> > Because people want to read the documentation.
>
> get postgresql.src.tar.gz
> get postgresql.docs.tar.gz
>
> instead of just
>
> get postgresql.tar.gz

But we already have a set of split distributions.  If you want to split it
in a different way, why not, but abolishing the full distribution is going
to seriously alienate use from the conventions used in open source land.

> I'm curious as to how many ppl would actually download those docs ...

This is the wrong question to ask.  The real question to me is:  If we do
this, how many people won't download the documentation, don't read it,
don't find it, spread the word that PostgreSQL is poorly documented, don't
use it correctly, spread the word that PostgreSQL isn't easy to use, and
take our time with avoidable mailing list traffic?  Also, how many people
will consequently not even get a chance to contribute to the
documentation?  People won't do two downloads for marginal benefit.

But let me ask you this:  If we split out the documentation, why stop
there?  Why not leave out pgtclsh, how many people need that?  Or what
about the JDBC driver sources?  People can download the pre-compiled jar
file.  These are in fact valid concerns, and they are adressed by the
split tarballs that we offer.  But there *must* be a full source tarball.
I cannot count on two hands the occasion where I had a source package
where people left out "non-essential" source files.  They lost me as a
contributor.  I'm not going to set up a CVS pull to fix a sentence.

> I
> know that I'd never do so, as I'm never on the same machine that the
> server is running from, so just hit the web site ...

I think you would be glad if more people read them locally and less people
hit the web. ;-)

> so, for those that do, we are giving them one extra step, and for those
> that don't, saving them time and bandwidth ...

People that want to save time and bandwidth use binary packages or the
split tarballs that we already have.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  43. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-07T18:19:32Z

    The Hermit Hacker writes:

> those that don't want it, it sames them 2meg of download time ...

Another way to save at least 1 MB of download time would be bzip2'ed
tarballs.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/

  44. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2001-04-07T18:25:29Z

    > Bruce Momjian writes:
> 
> > A major issue is that we don't regenerate docs for 7.1.1 or later, so
> 
> Sure we do.
> 
> > the 7.1 docs carry for all the 7.1.X releases.  That would seem to argue
> > for a separate tarball for docs so people don't redownload the docs
> > again for 7.1.1.

I didn't know that. I thought we genarated postscript only major
releases.  Do we regenerate HTML for subreleases?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

  45. Re: RC3 ...

    Joel Burton <jburton@scw.org> — 2001-04-07T18:30:36Z

    On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Thomas Lockhart writes:
> 
> > > > The docs are ready for shipment.
> > > Even better ...
> > > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week...
> >
> > I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it
> > is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :(
> 
> I'm not speaking about "allowed", I'm merely talking about the state of
> affairs since 7.0.  If people think that the postscript format should be
> in the main tarball, then why not, but IIRC this question was raised last
> time around and the decision went the other way.

Having had to d/l PG many times on many different machines, I'd be
delighted if it came w/o .ps docs, and w/o the doc sources (the number of
people who seem to be able to turn docbook into useful stuff seems to be
<< than people who can successful compile PG!).

It sounds like the separate-tgz for docs and for Postscript makes perfect
sense. Just make sure that it's *very* obvious where/how to get these, so
that the mailing lists are deluged w/ 'where are the docs'?

Just my .02,
-- 
Joel Burton   <jburton@scw.org>
Director of Information Systems, Support Center of Washington

  46. Re: Re: RC3 ... and rpms...

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-04-08T03:43:00Z

    Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> Actually, since you can suppress installation of the docs with --nodocs,
> I would very much prefer to keep the html and text docs in the main RPM.
> Otherwise I have two directories in /usr/doc for one software suite.

I'm researching how to get a subpackage to place docs in the main
package %doc.

HTML docs and man pages are with the main package; SGML source and any
hardcopy docs will go into the docs subpackage. The contrib tree is
getting its own subpackage.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

  47. Re: Re: RC3 ...

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-04-08T16:58:57Z

    Bruce Momjian writes:

> I didn't know that. I thought we genarated postscript only major
> releases.  Do we regenerate HTML for subreleases?

The HTML is generated every 12 hours, and whenever a distribution is
wrapped up it picks up the latest bundle.  This will probably have to be
sorted out again when a branch is made so the paths are set correctly, but
in principle it is trivial to arrange.  Not that the documentation ever
changes for minor releases.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/