[Bug 249522] Review Request: sepostgresql - Security-Enhanced PostgreSQL

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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


a.badger at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tgl at redhat.com,
                   |                            |a.badger at gmail.com
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEEDINFO
               Flag|                            |needinfo?




------- Additional Comments From a.badger at gmail.com  2007-08-27 13:35 EST -------
Rereading the Conflicts Guidelines with your comments in mind I think I see a
point of confusion.  The "Implicit Conflicts" section highlights the fact that
implicit conflicts are never acceptable.  It says that all conflicts must be
explicit (marked with Conflicts: PKG).  If I understand, your reading of that
section is what leads you to mark the package Conflicts: postgresql-server.

However, that section, taken in context with the preceding paragraph is meant
only to convey that implicit conflicts are disallowed.  To use "Conflicts: PKG"
you still need to fit under one of the other categories (presently "Other
Functionality" or "Compat Packages") which this package does not.

This package comes closest to the "Binary Name Conflicts" section.  In that
section, two alternatives are given: Rename the files (in this case you would
also have to use a different port) or use alternatives to manage the dual install.

This package is a prime candidate for alternatives as it creates binaries that
are commandline compatible with postgresql-server and needs to use the same
port.  You'll need to talk to Tom Lane (tgl redhat.com; now CC'd), the
postgresql maintainer about how he feels about doing that with the main postgres
package.  He might also have a different idea on how to make the packages co-exist.

If you and tgl decide that Conflicts really is the best way to go, present your
reasoning to the Packaging Committee (fedora-packaging redhat.com) so they can
consider adding another case where "Conflicts: PKG" is allowed. 

As a side note: I think that using rm to clean up files that you don't want to
include in the package is much cleaner than using
  %define _unpackaged_files_terminate_build 0
Turning off the check is using a bigger stick than necessary.  Turning off the
check means that you won't be warned of cases where the build changes and starts
creating differently named binaries or new files that you actually want to
install.  Using rm will target specific files so it's more future proof.

-- 
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.