should I be doing likewise with ruby/irb etc? So far so good but I doubt I have put it to a hard test yet.

Yes, if it's not too much trouble. I don't expect enough people to want the new ruby for it to make the leap to centosplus, but it is nice to get an idea of how many people are using it, and what their experiences are.

-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:07, Jim Perrin wrote:

They were never in centosplus. They were in c4-Testing on dev.centos.org, and are still there -> http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/x86_64/RPMS/ waiting for the required feedback to move to centosplus. If you use them and they work well for you, please by all means provide feedback at bugs.centos.org. The feedback tracker is here -> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1182

Oops - my bad!

As I said, I've been using them with CentOS 4.2 on a Tyan dual proc opteron X86/64 for about a month with no particular problems, until yesterday. I'm trying to track down a bug with the PG support list, and they need a gdb trace with development symbols enabled.

What package do I need to install to get a build with symbols? Or, is the only way to get this to recompile an SRPM with some options applied? How should I do the latter? Here's what I have installed:

[root@kepler ~]# rpm -qa | grep postg postgresql-server-8.1.0-4.c4 postgresql-contrib-8.1.0-4.c4 postgresql-8.1.0-4.c4 postgresql-devel-8.1.0-4.c4 postgresql-test-8.1.0-4.c4 compat-postgresql-libs-3_x86_64-4.c4.centos postgresql-libs-8.1.0-4.c4 postgresql-docs-8.1.0-4.c4

-Ben

Wow. This stuff works FAST!

I got the debuginfo package, installed, and found that the problem comes down to a bug fixed in PG 8.1.1, and the current release seems to be 8.1.2 - any chance this can be updated?

This is a production server, so I REALLY don't want to leave the CentOS build environment...

-Ben

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 12:52, Jim Perrin wrote:

...

What package do I need to install to get a build with symbols? Or, is the

only

...

way to get this to recompile an SRPM with some options applied? How should

I

...

do the latter? Here's what I have installed:

You'll need the debuginfo packages. They should be available via yum for that repo, but they're here just in case that's not the case -> http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/x86_64/debug/

-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the effective difference between the fedora packages, and the ones officially distributed at postgresql.org?

Is there "extra mojo" that the fedora packages have added?

-Ben

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 13:57, Jim Perrin wrote:

...

I got the debuginfo package, installed, and found that the problem comes

down

...

to a bug fixed in PG 8.1.1, and the current release seems to be 8.1.2 -

any

...

chance this can be updated?

These aren't RHEL production packages that are rebuilt. These packages are from fedora and are still on our development list. Please keep this in mind when using them. I'm running them through the build system now, so they should be up in a couple hours.

...

This is a production server, so I REALLY don't want to leave the CentOS

build

...

environment...

These are still in our DEVELOPMENT repository because they haven't had enough feedback to make it to centosplus yet. Please keep this in mind and test them appropriately in your environment before rolling them into production.

-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:40, Benjamin Smith wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, what's the effective difference between the fedora packages, and the ones officially distributed at postgresql.org?

I'll field this one. Sorry for the Off Topic content to those who might not find this interesting; I'll try to keep it short (which means skipping lots of juicy details about the GreatBridge event, backporting to really old distributions, and the SuSE difference).

Technical differences are easy to locate; look at the spec files, the initscript, and the patchsets. The cultural reasons for the technical differences are to me more interesting, and I am somewhat uniquely qualified to comment on them, since I maintained the RPM set for five years between 1999 and 2004, beginning at Red Hat 6.2/PG 6.5 (and working with Jeff, Cristian, Elliot, Trond, and other Red Hat staff) and ending just before the release of PG 8.0.

While the PostgreSQL RPM Foundry project (located at http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgsqlrpms/ ) aims to build Fedora/Red Hat RPMs, the 'Official' Red Hat Packager is Tom Lane, who is a member of the PostgreSQL Steering Committee (aka 'Core'), and a Red Hat employee (he is responsible for the RHEL PostgreSQL and MySQL packages, as well as backporting bugfixes to the older versions still under RHEL support; these backports get released from the PostgreSQL official site, too). Tom is also a member of the psqlrpms PGFoundry project group and has quite a bit of input into both sets of packages. Devrim Gunduz, who works for one of the several commercial PostgreSQL companies, CommandPrompt, is the current PostgreSQL Global Development Group RPM coordinator.

The PGFoundry and Tom Lane's packages do differ; the PGFoundry versions are designed to be more generic, and are designed to work with earlier Red Hat/Fedora releases. The current Fedora and RHEL packages have no such backwards-compatibility aspirations.

There are a number of other top-notch projects at PGFoundry you might find interesting, as well.

If anyone would like more detail, I'll be happy to oblige in off-list e-mail.

On Friday 27 January 2006 14:22, Phil Schaffner wrote:

I do find it interesting; however, I'd suggest that this thread (or at least what it mutated into :-) and anything else discussing package testing/development - including bug and success reports for packages in the c4-testing repo) might find a better target audience on the centos- devel list: http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

I'm sorry; as I have Kmail piling the normal Centos list and Centos-devel into the same folder it sometimes becomes difficult to segregate them in my mind (but I get over 1,000 e-mails per day on the typical day...).

There was also some recent discussion on centos-devel of the value of having reports on testing packages at http://bugs.centos.org/

I have not reported on them because I am not currently using them in production on any Intel boxes.

I was going to do so, and had installed the 8.1.x packages on a CentOS 4 Intel box, but due to the differences between the storage of OLE objects as large objects in 7.4 and 8.1, I had to regress to 7.4 to store the OLE objects I needed, until I have the time to test the ODBC/OLE object connection more thoroughly.

Dunno what standard you want to hold packages to before development packages are considered "release ready" - but it looks pretty good to me so far.

Excellent. I'm glad to here they work for you. We're moving packages from dev to centosplus based on a positive feedback mechanism. If you would be so kind as to post something related to this on the tracking bug for postgres I would really appreciate it. The url for the bug is here -> http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1182

-- Jim Perrin System Architect - UIT Ft Gordon & US Army Signal Center