Postgresql namespace

[Miroslav Suchý]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28

Should we have:
postgresql-pgpool-II
postgresql-orafce

or just:
pgpool-II
orafce

Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind of 
same namespace.

[Devrim Gündüz]

On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28
>
> Should we have:
> postgresql-pgpool-II
> postgresql-orafce
>
> or just:
> pgpool-II
> orafce
>
> Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind
> of same namespace.

Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names
and they are just useless.

I'll change the names in rawhide next week or so.

[Tom Lane]

Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?=  writes:
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28
> >
> > Should we have:
> > postgresql-pgpool-II
> > postgresql-orafce
> >
> > or just:
> > pgpool-II
> > orafce
> >
> > Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind
> > of same namespace.
> Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names
> and they are just useless.

FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to
better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent
for Devrim's position.

regards, tom lane

[Jesse Keating]

On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?=  writes:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28
> > >
> > > Should we have:
> > > postgresql-pgpool-II
> > > postgresql-orafce
> > >
> > > or just:
> > > pgpool-II
> > > orafce
> > >
> > > Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind
> > > of same namespace.
> > Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names
> > and they are just useless.
>
> FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to
> better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent
> for Devrim's position.
> 	regards, tom lane

It's also worth noting what other distributions do, do they honor the
upstream names or pre/postpend some sort of identifier?

[Jean-Francois Saucier]

> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <fedora-list at gunduz.org> writes:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28
> > >
> > > Should we have:
> > > postgresql-pgpool-II
> > > postgresql-orafce
> > >
> > > or just:
> > > pgpool-II
> > > orafce
> > >
> > > Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind
> > > of same namespace.
> > Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names
> > and they are just useless.
>
> FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to
> better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent
> for Devrim's position.
> 	regards, tom lane
> It's also worth noting what other distributions do, do they honor the
> upstream names or pre/postpend some sort of identifier?

If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as 
postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian.

OpenSuse and Mandriva don't seem to ship orafce.

[Matthias Runge]

On 04/23/2010 08:47 PM, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 11:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?=<fedora-list at gunduz.org>  writes:
> > > On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 16:40 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251805#c28
> > > >
> > > > Should we have:
> > > > postgresql-pgpool-II
> > > > postgresql-orafce
> > > >
> > > > or just:
> > > > pgpool-II
> > > > orafce
> > > >
> > > > Let start discussing. My opinion is postgresql-* because it has kind
> > > > of same namespace.
> > > Let's get rid of postgresql- prefixes. They don't match upstream names
> > > and they are just useless.
> >
> > FWIW, I've recently renamed postgresql-tcl and postgresql-python to
> > better match their upstream project names, so I guess that's precedent
> > for Devrim's position.
> > 	regards, tom lane
> > It's also worth noting what other distributions do, do they honor the
> > upstream names or pre/postpend some sort of identifier?
>
> If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as
> postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian.
>
> OpenSuse and Mandriva don't seem to ship orafce.

Thinking of more general packages, e.g a java binding for postgresql, I 
would prefer names like postgresql-java (or similar) to be able to 
differentiate from mysql-java, ingres-java (given, those packages do 
exist). To be conformant to this naming scheme, other packages, that do 
only exist e.g. for postgresql, should IMHO be named postgresql-something.

Even a search on packages gets you faster to results just by browsing 
package names (yes, I know yum is pretty smart and does not need that.)

Cheers,
Matthias

[Tom Lane]

Matthias Runge  writes:
> Thinking of more general packages, e.g a java binding for postgresql, I 
> would prefer names like postgresql-java (or similar) to be able to 
> differentiate from mysql-java, ingres-java (given, those packages do 
> exist). To be conformant to this naming scheme, other packages, that do 
> only exist e.g. for postgresql, should IMHO be named postgresql-something.

More often than not, database/language binding packages are already
subject to some other naming convention associated with the language.
For instance, the tcl, perl, and python bindings all are subject to
conventions suggesting that their names ought to start with tcl-, perl-,
python- respectively.  So I think we'd be getting into trouble if we try
to establish naming conventions that put the database first.

We could perhaps do things one way for bindings and another way for
packages that are purely internal to the database, but I'm not finding
that to be a compelling idea.  I think "name it after the upstream
project" is a good enough rule.

regards, tom lane

[Devrim Gündüz]

On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 14:47 -0400, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
> If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as 
> postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian.

It is probably because they ship different PostgreSQL versions in each
distro. Fedora does not have this yet (FWIW, I'm working on this in my
repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org and as of PostgreSQL 9.0, it will be
supported for Fedora/CentOS).

I did not use the Debian way, so we won't need postgresql-9.0-orafce
thing (I hope).

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 04/26/2010 12:19 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-23 at 14:47 -0400, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
> > If I check in the Ubuntu Lucid repository, orafce is packaged as 
> > postgresql-8.3-orafce, same for Debian.
>
> It is probably because they ship different PostgreSQL versions in each
> distro. Fedora does not have this yet (FWIW, I'm working on this in my
> repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org and as of PostgreSQL 9.0, it will be
> supported for Fedora/CentOS).

Any reason not to have it in the Fedora repo instead of your own?

Rahul

[Devrim Gündüz]

On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 12:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Any reason not to have it in the Fedora repo instead of your own?

I'm not the maintainer of PostgreSQL package in Fedora/RHEL. Tom (Lane)
has been already maintaining it and doing very good job over there at
Red Hat. He will *probably* do the same for Fedora when 9.0 goes beta or
so. I am the upstream packager only.

FWIW, since Fedora/RHEL (up to 5.5) does support only 1 PostgreSQL
version w/ RPMs, this 3rd party repository  helps people to use recent
PG versions with their distros. (Majority of our users are RHEL 5 users,
who use PostgreSQL 8.3 and 8.4 on RHEL 5). I'm sure that's one of the
reasons that RHEL 5.5 shipped PostgreSQL 8.4 along with 8.1.

Regards,

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 04/26/2010 04:47 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote
> FWIW, since Fedora/RHEL (up to 5.5) does support only 1 PostgreSQL
> version w/ RPMs, this 3rd party repository  helps people to use recent
> PG versions with their distros. (Majority of our users are RHEL 5 users,
> who use PostgreSQL 8.3 and 8.4 on RHEL 5). I'm sure that's one of the
> reasons that RHEL 5.5 shipped PostgreSQL 8.4 along with 8.1.

Perhaps I was not clear but my question was if multiple of Postgres is a
useful to thing to have, why don't we do it in the Fedora repo instead
of having users seek out and use a third party repo?

Rahul

[Devrim Gündüz]

On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear but my question was if multiple of Postgres is
> a useful to thing to have, why don't we do it in the Fedora repo
> instead of having users seek out and use a third party repo?

As I wrote: I'm *not* maintaining PostgreSQL RPMs for Fedora. What I'm
maintaining is PostgreSQL modules.

It is up to Tom to use that feature in Fedora RPMs.

Regards,

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 02:17:57PM +0300, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> FWIW, since Fedora/RHEL (up to 5.5) does support only 1 PostgreSQL
> version w/ RPMs, this 3rd party repository  helps people to use recent
> PG versions with their distros. (Majority of our users are RHEL 5 users,
> who use PostgreSQL 8.3 and 8.4 on RHEL 5). I'm sure that's one of the
> reasons that RHEL 5.5 shipped PostgreSQL 8.4 along with 8.1.

Can addons to postgres (and
I realize we have many different types of addons... perhaps we need to know
if there's a a majority of one or the other or an intuitive way to break the
addons into categories) be used with both postgresql-8.1 and postgresql-8.4
from a single package or do they need multiple packages?  Since we do have
multiple versions of postgresql now (in RHEL5.5) it makes sense to me to
keep the postgresql prefix to separate the two versions from each other.

Having users search for "orafce" if it's targeting postgresql-8.1
and postgresql84-orafce if it's targeting postgresql-8.4 in bugzilla, yum
install, etc, isn't a great experience.

-Toshio

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

Is there any reason why we aren't naming this as closed to upstream as 
possible?

http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux

http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/ 
http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/

BTW What's the difference between upstream packages and the packages we 
build as in why does upstream feel compelled to provide it's own 
packages and repo?

JBG

[Tom Lane]

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=F3hann_B=2E_Gu=F0mundsson=22?=  writes:
> BTW What's the difference between upstream packages and the packages we 
> build as in why does upstream feel compelled to provide it's own 
> packages and repo?

Upstream, or more accurately Devrim, provides prebuilt packages for a
range of Postgres release series on various platforms.  Most of those
platforms (including Fedora) only officially support one Postgres
release series.  The version that happens to match the platform's own
package is a bit redundant, agreed, but it may be easier for Devrim
to just build all the combinations than to track which one is redundant
at any given time.  Also, Devrim is pretty quick about publishing
updates when new upstream minor releases come out.  Some people might
prefer that to the platform's own update process, which can be a *lot*
slower.  This doesn't apply so much to Fedora, where I usually push the
"official" update about as quickly, but for sure it's an issue on
RHEL and CentOS.

regards, tom lane