Thread

1. Beta2 ... ?

   Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2001-01-05T22:33:02Z

   Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
   announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?
   
   Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
   Systems Administrator @ hub.org
   primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
   
   
   

2. Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-01-05T22:55:12Z

   The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
   > Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
   > announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?
   
   Wrap it up, I'd say.  I don't have anything pending that seems worth
   holding up beta2 for.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

3. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-05T23:35:43Z

   mike wrote:
   >Tom Lane Wrote:
   > > Wrap it up, I'd say.  I don't have anything pending that seems worth
   > > holding up beta2 for.
    
   > Will RPM's be made availiable for this beta release?
   
   I intend to do so, but it will be a few days to a week after the tarball
   release.
   
   I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
   around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
   changed.... :-)
   --
   Lamar Owen
   WGCR Internet Radio
   1 Peter 4:11
   
   

4. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-01-05T23:49:04Z

   Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
   > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
   > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
   > changed.... :-)
   
   Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
   fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
   out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
   testing work is not a good project management practice ...
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

5. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-06T00:02:52Z

   Tom Lane wrote:
   > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
   > > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
   > > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
   > > changed.... :-)
    
   > Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
   > fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
   > out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
   > testing work is not a good project management practice ...
   
   Ok, consider my mind changed. :-).  My only concerns were, due to some
   feedback I have gotten, is that people would treat the RPM release as
   _productions_ rather than beta -- but maybe I'm just being paranoid. 
   More than likely I'm being paranoid.....
   
   Look for RPM's in a few days, then.
   --
   Lamar Owen
   WGCR Internet Radio
   1 Peter 4:11
   
   

6. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2001-01-06T00:17:24Z

   Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
   > Ok, consider my mind changed. :-).  My only concerns were, due to some
   > feedback I have gotten, is that people would treat the RPM release as
   > _productions_ rather than beta -- but maybe I'm just being paranoid. 
   
   As long as the RPMs are clearly marked beta, I don't have a lot of
   sympathy for anyone who thinks beta == production.
   
   			regards, tom lane
   
   

7. Re: Beta2 ... ?

   mike <mike@neutrinostudios.com> — 2001-01-06T02:10:31Z

   > The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
   > > Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
   > > announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?
   > 
   > Wrap it up, I'd say.  I don't have anything pending that seems worth
   > holding up beta2 for.
   
   Will RPM's be made availiable for this beta release?
   
   Mike
   
   
   

8. Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-06T02:54:19Z

   The Hermit Hacker writes:
   
   > Anyone have anything outstanding that prevents me rolling a Beta2 and
   > announcing it this weekend?  Tom?  Vadim?  Peter?
   
   I'll commit the grammar changes we discussed yesterday, plus some new
   documentation that goes with it, tomorrow.  I'm also going to send you a
   patch for mk-release so that the right documentation files are shipped
   this time.
   
   -- 
   Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
   
   
   

9. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

   Emmanuel Charpentier <charpent@bacbuc.fdn.fr> — 2001-01-06T08:40:21Z

   Tom Lane wrote:
   > 
   > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
   > > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
   > > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
   > > changed.... :-)
   > 
   > Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
   > fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
   > out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
   > testing work is not a good project management practice ...
   
   I'd like to argue for .deb Debian packages as well, for similar reasons.
   But I'm aware that those are harder to produce, and that Oliver Elphick
   is almost alone on this task.
   
   --
   Emmanuel Charpentier
   
   

10. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Roderick A. Anderson <raanders@tincan.org> — 2001-01-06T15:56:29Z

    On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
    
    > Ok, consider my mind changed. :-).  My only concerns were, due to some
    > feedback I have gotten, is that people would treat the RPM release as
    > _productions_ rather than beta -- but maybe I'm just being paranoid. 
    
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you!
    
    But like Tom says - a beta in the name - should do it (and will for me).
    
    Lamar,
    
    Is it possible to put some variables in the spec file so I can turn off
    compiling the python and tcl portions.  Of course I seem to remember a
    thread to a similar effect floating through but can't remember what the
    outcome was.
    
    
    TIA,
    Rod
    -- 
    
    
    

11. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Michael J Schout <mschout@gkg.net> — 2001-01-09T22:25:02Z

    
    On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
    
    > Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes:
    > > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
    > > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
    > > changed.... :-)
    > 
    > Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
    > fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
    > out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
    > testing work is not a good project management practice ...
    
    FWIW:
    
    We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
    were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
    that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.  So
    you can count me as one beta tester that you would have if you made RPMS of the
    betas.
    
    
    Regards,
    Mike
    
    
    

12. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-09T23:11:11Z

    Michael J Schout wrote:
    > We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
    > were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
    > that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.  So
    > you can count me as one beta tester that you would have if you made RPMS of the
    > betas.
    
    Your offer is appreciated, and will most definitely be taken :-).
    
    I'm experiencing some degree of difficulty with the build -- mostly due
    to some reorg in the Perl and Python clients, but also some main Make
    framework as well, thanks to the RPM build-root environment. The
    compiles I have done outside the RPM environment have worked and
    installed (as source installs) very cleanly -- but the RPM build-root
    environment is rather different -- installing files to a location where
    they won't actually be installed to :-).
    
    Let me explain:  so that RPM builders don't accidentally trash their
    systems during building, RPM includes a 'build-root' mechanism that
    allows a fake root for the build install to be used instead of the real
    root.  Think 'chroot-lite'.  This build-root is not enforced anywhere
    except by the spec file build and install sections.  This also allows
    RPMs to be built for root installation by a non-root user, which
    provides an extra layer of filesystem protection.
    
    So, files get installed to this build-root, for eventual real
    installation on the real root when the RPM is actually installed.
    
    However, there are some hard-coded paths left in the build, and the perl
    client is being difficult, and odbcinst is going to the REAL /usr/etc
    instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc.... I have lots of combing to do.  In
    many ways 7.1 is an easier build -- but not in this regard. But I
    consider this an RPM issue and not a PostgreSQL tarball issue, meaning,
    while I will be developing patches for the RPM build, I won't expect
    those to be integrated into the main tarball.
    
    So, I'm plugging at it....
    --
    Lamar Owen
    WGCR Internet Radio
    1 Peter 4:11
    
    

13. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-10T16:43:03Z

    Michael J Schout writes:
    
    > We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
    > were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
    > that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.
    
    Building from source takes five minutes.  Reading the installation
    instructions takes maybe ten minutes.  Don't tell me you don't have that
    amount of time but you still want to beta test.  *shrug*
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
    
    
    

14. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-10T16:53:32Z

    Lamar Owen writes:
    
    > However, there are some hard-coded paths left in the build, and the perl
    > client is being difficult,
    
    The Perl and Python clients use their own build system.  Not sure how to
    handle it.
    
    > and odbcinst is going to the REAL /usr/etc instead of
    > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc....
    
    Works here.  Hmm, are you using 'make install DESTDIR=/random/place'?
    Given that it's not documented it's unlikely that you are.  But do start
    using it.
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
    
    
    

15. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-10T17:03:03Z

    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    > Lamar Owen writes:
    > > However, there are some hard-coded paths left in the build, and the perl
    > > client is being difficult,
     
    > The Perl and Python clients use their own build system.  Not sure how to
    > handle it.
    
    I'm looking, in between day job stuff.
     
    > > and odbcinst is going to the REAL /usr/etc instead of
    > > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/etc....
     
    > Works here.
    
    Which doesn't surprise me.  The RPM building environment is not the same
    as building from source inside a regular user shell.  Similar, but not
    the same.
    
    > Hmm, are you using 'make install DESTDIR=/random/place'?
    > Given that it's not documented it's unlikely that you are.  But do start
    > using it.
    
    Enlighten me.  DESTDIR does?  
    
    Currently, my install lines look like:
    make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src
    install
    make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C
    src/interface
    s/perl5 install
    
    So, I would put something like:
    make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr
    DESTDIR=/usr -C src install
    ???
    
    --
    Lamar Owen
    WGCR Internet Radio
    1 Peter 4:11
    
    

16. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-10T17:55:21Z

    Lamar Owen writes:
    
    > > Hmm, are you using 'make install DESTDIR=/random/place'?
    > > Given that it's not documented it's unlikely that you are.  But do start
    > > using it.
    >
    > Enlighten me.  DESTDIR does?
    
    It installs files at a different place than where they will eventually
    reside.  E.g., if your --prefix is /usr/local and DESTDIR=/var/tmp/foo
    then the files will end up in /var/tmp/foo/usr/local.  This is exactly for
    package management type applications.
    
    > Currently, my install lines look like:
    > make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C src
    > install
    > make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr -C
    > src/interface
    > s/perl5 install
    
    Then it's not surprising that things don't work since neither POSTGRESDIR
    nor PREFIX are used anywhere in PostgreSQL makefiles.
    
    > So, I would put something like:
    > make POSTGRESDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr PREFIX=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr
    > DESTDIR=/usr -C src install
    > ???
    
    ./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
                --docdir=/usr/share/doc/postgresql-'$(VERSION)' \
                --mandir=/usr/share/man \
                ...other options...
    make all
    make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
    
    
    

17. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-10T18:03:56Z

    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    > Lamar Owen writes:
    > > Enlighten me.  DESTDIR does?
     
    > It installs files at a different place than where they will eventually
    > reside.  E.g., if your --prefix is /usr/local and DESTDIR=/var/tmp/foo
    > then the files will end up in /var/tmp/foo/usr/local.  This is exactly for
    > package management type applications.
    
    Good.
     
    > Then it's not surprising that things don't work since neither POSTGRESDIR
    > nor PREFIX are used anywhere in PostgreSQL makefiles.
    
    Had they been prior to 7.1?
    
    > ./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
    >             --docdir=/usr/share/doc/postgresql-'$(VERSION)' \
    >             --mandir=/usr/share/man \
    >             ...other options...
    
    Already doing all of that, except --sysconfdir and friends.  It's more
    complicated than the above:
    ./configure --prefic=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc \
                --docdir=%{_docdir}/%{name}/%{version} \
                --mandir=%{_mandir} \
                ....
    to take into account the differing distributions' differing ideas of
    where things ought to be put.
    
    > make all
    > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
    
    Much simpler.  Will get back as soon as I get time to run a build (staff
    meeting here in ten minutes.....).
    
    Does the python build stuff use DESTDIR these days?  The perl stuff
    needs some other things, unfortunately.  I need to look in the CPAN RPM
    spec's to get examples of how to do this portably without major
    connarptions.
    
    I knew you had changed something along those lines; I even remember a
    message listing the switches necessary; but I could not find it in my
    message archive.
    --
    Lamar Owen
    WGCR Internet Radio
    1 Peter 4:11
    
    

18. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Michael J Schout <mschout@gkg.net> — 2001-01-12T16:14:43Z

    
    On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    
    > Michael J Schout writes:
    > 
    > > We would definately beta test 7.1 beta releases on our test machines if RPMS
    > > were made available.  However, if rpms are not made available, its unlikely
    > > that anyone around here will get time to build the sources from scratch.
    > 
    > Building from source takes five minutes.  Reading the installation
    > instructions takes maybe ten minutes.  Don't tell me you don't have that
    > amount of time but you still want to beta test.  *shrug*
    
    Yes, building the sources isn't that difficult, but it definately takes longer
    than:
    
    rpm -ivh ftp://ftp.postgresql/pub/whatever/postgresql-\*.rpm
    
    My feeling is that if we can make it as easy as possible for beta testers to
    get the beta releases up and running, the more likely they are to use the beta
    releases.
    
    Mike
    
    
    

19. RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-12T16:30:09Z

    Lamar Owen writes:
    
    > Does the python build stuff use DESTDIR these days?
    
    It does not.  You'd have to delve into the internals of the
    Python-provided makefiles.  I might just have to do that, but if you want
    to look then let me know because this should get fixed.
    
    > The perl stuff needs some other things, unfortunately.  I need to look
    > in the CPAN RPM spec's to get examples of how to do this portably
    > without major connarptions.
    
    The Perl build hasn't changed since 7.0 in dramatic ways.
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
    
    
    

20. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    bpalmer <bpalmer@crimelabs.net> — 2001-01-12T16:50:25Z

    Speaking of which..
    >
    > rpm -ivh ftp://ftp.postgresql/pub/whatever/postgresql-\*.rpm
    >
    Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
    (www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
    get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
    packages for the betas?
    
    - Brandon
    
    b. palmer,  bpalmer@crimelabs.net
    pgp:  www.crimelabs.net/bpalmer.pgp5
    
    
    

21. Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-12T17:39:44Z

    bpalmer writes:
    
    > Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
    > (www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
    > get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
    > packages for the betas?
    
    The RPMs are on the FTP server.
    
    In general I feel that packaging is left up to the operating system
    distributor.  So your OpenBSD packages should be sent to the respective
    port maintainer.  The RPMs are treated somewhat differently because they
    are platform independent and a lot of people are interested in getting
    betas in RPM form -- and not least importantly also because someone has
    taken the time to do it on a regular basis.  The RPMs that are on the
    various Linux distribution CDs are still customized by the respective
    vendor.
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
    
    
    

22. Re: Beta2 ... ?

    Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 2001-01-12T17:50:13Z

    > > Is there a clearing house for packages?  I have made some for OpenBSD
    > > (www.crimelabs.net/postgresql.shtml),  but I wouldn't even know where to
    > > get the rpm or deb files.  Should there be a folder on the ftp server for
    > > packages for the betas?
    > The RPMs are on the FTP server.
    > In general I feel that packaging is left up to the operating system
    > distributor.  So your OpenBSD packages should be sent to the respective
    > port maintainer.  The RPMs are treated somewhat differently because they
    > are platform independent and a lot of people are interested in getting
    > betas in RPM form -- and not least importantly also because someone has
    > taken the time to do it on a regular basis.  The RPMs that are on the
    > various Linux distribution CDs are still customized by the respective
    > vendor.
    
    Although packages should of course be sent to the port maintainer, I'm
    sure that in general that they would be welcome on ftp.postgresql.org
    also. The RPMs have greater visibility because we have taken the time to
    evolve the packaging (and because the packaging needed a good bit of
    work on the system I had at the time, so what the heck ;) and certainly
    they have benefited from Lamar's attention over the last months.
    
    Other packages would potentially be in the same circumstances: if they
    are packaged by someone familiar with the package itself, they will
    become better than if they are packaged by someone only familiar with
    packaging. Certainly every package done by someone active on these lists
    (e.g. Oliver with Debian) is of high quality and has benefited from
    their knowledge of PostgreSQL.
    
    I'm not sure what the case is for OpenBSD specifically, but you may want
    to talk more with the "official maintainer" if that isn't yourself...
    
                          - Thomas
    
    

23. Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-12T20:08:07Z

    Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    > Lamar Owen writes:
    > > Does the python build stuff use DESTDIR these days?
     
    > It does not.  You'd have to delve into the internals of the
    > Python-provided makefiles.  I might just have to do that, but if you want
    > to look then let me know because this should get fixed.
    
    Hmmm.  Then I may just keep the python build I have now, as it should
    still work, and it is a 'full-manual' build.
     
    > > The perl stuff needs some other things, unfortunately.  I need to look
    > > in the CPAN RPM spec's to get examples of how to do this portably
    > > without major connarptions.
     
    > The Perl build hasn't changed since 7.0 in dramatic ways.
    
    Well, it's pretty dramatic to get the starred box saying that I don't
    have permissions to install to where I want to install it when I'm
    running as root.  Or, to put it more tersely, the 7.0 build worked in
    the RPM build context -- the 7.1 build does not with the same build
    technique.
    
    The root cause is an if [ -w check for the intalldir, which is set to an
    entirely inappropriate place.
    
    So, there are differences (I think the new way is going to be smoother,
    personally, once I get it working again).
    --
    Lamar Owen
    WGCR Internet Radio
    1 Peter 4:11
    
    

24. Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-12T20:27:09Z

    Lamar Owen wrote:
    > Well, it's pretty dramatic to get the starred box saying that I don't
    > have permissions to install to where I want to install it when I'm
    > running as root.  
    
    You'd think that, as a native English speaker, I could structure a
    sentence more effectively than that....
    
    Let me rephrase:
    
    It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
    message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
    the make install) as root.  Particularly when 7.0's perl 'make install'
    worked semi-properly.  I say semi-properly because the packing list had
    to be rewritten -- but at least the install did its job to the proper
    build-root'ed location.
    --
    Lamar Owen
    WGCR Internet Radio
    1 Peter 4:11
    
    

25. Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2001-01-13T03:13:50Z

    Lamar Owen writes:
    
    > It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
    > message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
    > the make install) as root.  Particularly when 7.0's perl 'make install'
    > worked semi-properly.  I say semi-properly because the packing list had
    > to be rewritten -- but at least the install did its job to the proper
    > build-root'ed location.
    
    Then we apparently have a problem here.  I can only say "works here", and
    I verified against the MakeMaker internals that things work as designed.
    What does 'gmake -f Makefile echo-installdir' show?  Is it the location
    you'd expect, and do you really have write access to that location?
    Maybe a shell problem in GNUmakefile?  I'm sitting at a RH 7.0 system and
    when I wrote this code I was using 5.2, so I must suspect that you are
    doing something that voids the warranty. ;-)
    
    -- 
    Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
    
    
    

26. Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)

    Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 2001-01-13T16:06:05Z

    > It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
    > message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
    > the make install) as root.  Particularly when 7.0's perl 'make install'
    > worked semi-properly.  I say semi-properly because the packing list had
    > to be rewritten -- but at least the install did its job to the proper
    > build-root'ed location.
    
    Just an fyi...
    
    I have been having trouble with one of the package files disappearing
    from the temporary instllation area during the rpm build of pg-7.0.3 for
    Mandrake on Mandrake-7.2 using a recent source RPM. I haven't tracked
    down the problem yet :(
    
                       - Thomas
    
    

27. Re: RPMs (was Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?)

    Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> — 2001-01-14T02:58:52Z

    On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
    > > It's pretty dramatic to get the 'You don't have permissions to install'
    > > message from the perl 'make install' when I am performing the build (and
    
    > I have been having trouble with one of the package files disappearing
    > from the temporary instllation area during the rpm build of pg-7.0.3 for
    > Mandrake on Mandrake-7.2 using a recent source RPM. I haven't tracked
    > down the problem yet :(
    
    To say that I am interested in the outcome would be an understatement.
    
    I fixed my perl problems by invoking the Makefile (not the GNUmakefile) for the
    second install and setting PREFIX properly then.  Yes, the second install
    phase.  I'll see if I can't fix this a little better -- but my goal was to get
    a build so that I can start fixing some things.
    
    Most of the stuff I am having to 'fix' is kludgery that Peter's config and
    makefile changes are eliminating :-).
    
    But having to regen patches and rebuild from scratch each time I change the
    spec makes it time-consuming.....  But the single DESTDIR addition makes it a
    much easier and cleaner build
    --
    Lamar Owen
    WGCR Internet Radio
    1 Peter 4:11