Mon May 9 16:44:04 PDT 2005
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Beta #3 coming RSN
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Beta #3 coming RSN
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi, > > On Thu, 5 May 2005, Christopher Browne wrote: > >> The one thing that seems conspicuously outstanding is the handling of >> the altperl tools in RPM packaging. >> >> Devrim Gunduz has been working on this, and it appears that it is very >> close to working. If we can get to the point of it actually working, >> which I think just involves choosing a place for the Perl scripts to go, >> then that is a clear level of readiness for this. > > > Ok, I have a new patch that seems to fix all our problems: > > http://postgresql.gunduz.org/slony/patches/slony-rpm.patch > > This patch: > > 1. Modifies the spec.in file for rpm builds. > 2. Changes slon_tools.conf to slon_tools.conf-sample in tools/altperl/ . > slon_tools.conf is a non-existent file and breaks RPM dependencies. > > On Red Hat EL ES 4 both make and make rpm worked. > > Could you please review and apply it? I have one issue with it, namely the proposed changes to various Perl scripts thus: replacing... ! $CONFIG_FILE = '@@SYSCONFDIR@@/slon_tools.conf'; with... ! $CONFIG_FILE = '@@SYSCONFDIR@@/slon_tools.conf-sample'; I don't think we should change all the scripts to automatically refer what is very clearly a sample file. The sample is just that, a sample that should get edited and renamed to slon_tools.conf before scripts try to use it. I have committed all but the "s/slon_tools.conf/slon_tools.conf-sample/g" changes. Personally, I don't think that the default filename should be changed. The scripts will indeed break when they discover they haven't a config file. That strikes me as being consistent with the installation output: echo "Slony1 has been successfully installed. Before running Slony1," echo "be sure to edit /etc/slon.conf-sample and rename it to" echo "/etc/slon.conf" If you don't "be sure to edit" the file, then everything breaks. But the sample is hardly a legitimate configuration; I don't think I want it to "work." I'm willing to go along with what people agree on; if there a preponderance of support for changing the default filename to @@SYSCONFDIR@@/slon_tools.conf-sample, I see no value in fighting any battles over it. But it doesn't seem right to me...
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] Beta #3 coming RSN
- Next message: [Slony1-general] Beta #3 coming RSN
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list