[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





------- Additional Comments From tgl at redhat.com  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.