Message-ID: <1474886953.28685.21.camel@gunduz.org>
Subject: Re: GDAL package naming question
From: Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= <devrim@gunduz.org>
To: John Harvey <john.harvey@crunchydata.com>, pgsql-pkg-yum
	 <pgsql-pkg-yum@postgresql.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:49:13 +0300
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABcP5fhUDt9SqywuHNm1uThEOL45YrddpO3RHmryW_01GexzOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<CABcP5fhUDt9SqywuHNm1uThEOL45YrddpO3RHmryW_01GexzOg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-bDoDhMigDN34Cyt4J0us"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-pkg-yum-owner@postgresql.org


--=-bDoDhMigDN34Cyt4J0us
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hi John,

On Wed, 2016-08-17 at 13:52 -0400, John Harvey wrote:
>=C2=A0
> I had a question about the GDAL package naming convention.
> I noticed that PGDG will sometimes change the name of some packages in
> order to include the version of postgres that they were compiled against
> (or maybe that they require at runtime).=C2=A0=C2=A0An example would be p=
ostgis2_95.

Right.

> For reference, in the EPEL repo, PostGIS does not have the 95 modifier.
> Here's a "yum list" result for postgis:
> postgis.x86_64=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A02.0.7-1.el7=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0epel

Right, they support only one version.

> I wanted to ask if there's a reason that GDAL didn't follow this
> convention.=C2=A0=C2=A0Even though each version of GDAL has a BuildRequir=
es line that
> specifies a pgmajorversion build dependency, the result isn't a gdal95 RP=
M.
>=20
> Is the reason because there's no runtime dependency on postgres (just a
> build one only)?

Well, I thought about adding suffix to gdal before, but then it might break
other packages that depend on versionless gdal.

Noone actually complained about it so far, so I *assumed* it is working. :-=
)

> Also, if I used a version of gdal that was compiled with PostgreSQL 9.2
> with my postgis2_95 build, would there be cause for concern?=C2=A0=C2=A0W=
ith the "95"
> off of the GDAL package name, it sort of implies that this sort of mixing=
 /
> matching would potentially be safe.=C2=A0=C2=A0I'm guessing that's not th=
e case, but
> I figured it's worth asking.

Again, I did not hear any complaints from the field (yet), so... :)

Regards,

--=20
Devrim G=C3=9CND=C3=9CZ
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Dan=C4=B1=C5=9Fman=C4=B1/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

--=-bDoDhMigDN34Cyt4J0us
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=ozhC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-bDoDhMigDN34Cyt4J0us--