Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=249522 ------- Additional Comments From tgl@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-27 15:04 EST ------- Trying to conflict with just one subpackage of the postgresql group seems like a pretty bad idea. For example, the PL and -test subpackages Require: postgresql-server, which would mean you'd have to duplicate those as se-specific versions. (Which maybe you have to do anyway, for the PLs ... are they going to be binary-compatible? What about postgresql-contrib?) Using alternatives is a possibility, but I'm not real excited about it because of its invasive effects on the regular postgresql package. I've also been reminded the hard way recently that RPM is not good about package upgrades that involve replacing files/directories with symlinks or vice versa; I'm afraid we'd hit one of those gotchas while trying to upgrade a postgresql installation into an alternatives-based setup. I don't see the reason why you can't make it install parallel files with different names (sepostgres etc). The argument that some error messages include the program name seems a bit silly, and it's been awhile since there were any hard dependencies on the executable name. Rather than Conflicts: postgresql-server, I wonder whether you shouldn't be trying to Require: postgresql-server = %{version} so that you can share whichever files are in common, instead of shipping duplicates. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review