Message-ID: <4B95E162.7060806@djs-consulting.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:49:22 +0000
From: "Daniel J. Summers" <daniel.lists@djs-consulting.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100306 Shredder/3.0.4pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: linux standard layout
References: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1003082243200.10671@coe.tamu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1003082243200.10671@coe.tamu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 03/09/2010 05:31 AM, Ben Kim wrote:
> Also, how is using standard rpm, with its standard layout 
> (/var/lib/pgsql, /usr/lib/pgsql, ...), generally regarded? ( vs. 
> compiling everything ?) Does anyone think using the rpm is 
> unprofessional or something that only beginners will do?
>
> I have someone who opposes the use of standard rpms (even yums) for 
> this reason. I thought I'd check out how it is received professionally.

I wouldn't have it any other way.  (I use Ubuntu, so it's packages 
instead of rpm, but it's the same.)  The biggest benefit I've seen is 
that the packages are built against known versions of supporting 
libraries, and these libraries are also in the repository.  So, an 
"apt-get install postgresql" gets the latest version AND all dependencies.

Your friend sounds like a snob.  :)  (Though he/she may have valid 
reasons for feeling that way, I haven't had that cause a problem in a 
modern Linux environment.  Red Hat 6?  Yeah, you might want to compile - 
you probably couldn't find all the dependencies anyway.)

> I ask the question because sometimes I feel uneasy mixing rpms and 
> source compilation.

Bingo.  :)  When I do have to compile, I compile AND create a package 
(if possible), then install the package.


Daniel