| Hi Jari!
|
| Jari Aalto [2005-08-27 21:30 +0300]:
| > The current packaging includes mostly admin scripts
|
| Please notice that postgresql-common does not actually contain these
| programs; it just contains symlinks with the program names that point
| to pg_wrapper. postgresql-client-<version> are the packages that
| contain the actual binaries.
Oops. I didn't notice those symlinks. You mentioned that
postgresql-client-<version> holds the binaries, but
postgresql-common reads:
Conflicts: postgresql (<< 7.5),
postgresql-client (<< 7.5),
postgresql-7.4 (<< 1:7.4.8-10),
postgresql-8.0 (<< 8.0.3-7)
which means that lower client packages cannot be used? So,
in order to connect to database (to use 'psql'), I have to
install postgresql-common whose name is
... is unintuitive
... and brings utilities (symlinks?) that are not asked for
| No, this is a dangerous and wrong assumption. *Everything* you can do
| with those "admin" programs you can do equally well with SQL commands
| in psql.
Right. I forgot that.
| It does not make sense at all to split out a bunch of symbolic links
| =66rom postgresql-common, they are tiny. I also don't see much sense in
| splitting the actual client binaries either, they are about 40 KB
| each, so they aren't really a disk hog.
|
| I will close this bug report for the reasons above. If you disagree
| heavily, feel free to reopen it, then I will mark it as "wontfix".
I admit that symlinks do not take much space. But then again
there are many virtual packages in Debian that do not contain
anything "real".
So, from the maintainer (your) point of view I understand
the reluctance to split, but I feel that the coherence of
the packaging system would be improved if there were
consistency and separation of objects like:
<package>-client
<package>-server
Just like the openssh finally is shipped in separate
packages and not in monolithic "one". In postgresql's case,
it's a bit "doh!, What's postgresql-common?"
- The name implies infrastructure for all postgresql
related
=> is it really such package?
- People searching for client with "apt-cache search"
will not recognize the need to look for
"common" package
The end user asks:
- Okay, I need client. Where is that client package?
- Okay I need admin tools, Where is that package?
- Okay I need server, where is that server?
I don't think it's the size of the package that should be
important, but the packages ability to answer to the needs
of the user. Even if with 'psql' it is possible to do all
the things as with the individual helper programs, the
mental thinking is that "they are admin utilities" and
should belong to "admin package".
Please, if you could reconsider once more,
Thanks,
Jari
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
