Re: [Info-ingres] Apt-(Debian)-Repository for Ingres R3?

Hi Gerhard,

> Hi all,
>
> I think the new RPM based setup method is much better than the old
> ingbuild-based one as used in Ingres 2.x.

The new RPM is certainly faster for installs. And once you get
used to the response file concept its pretty easy for primary
installations.

But its a pain in the arse for patches.

Worse is that it has to be run by root. My systems people arent
too happy with that as they are already overstretched.

And getting it to work on a secondary installation was not as
much fun as I'd anticipated.

On the whole, I can get used to RPM. But I'd prefer the tar files
for patches. It would be nice to have the choice. Although I suppose
that once you start down the rpm route you have to stay faithful. I'm not
sure what the implications are of running a patched version that now
disagrees with what rpm thinks is installed.

Martin Bowes
--
Random Duckman Quote #22:
Duckman - Actually it's quite a funny story,
Once you get passed all the tragic elements and the over-riding
sense of doom!

Hi Martin

martin.bowes-at-ctsu.ox.ac.uk wrote:
>
> The new RPM is certainly faster for installs. And once you get
> used to the response file concept its pretty easy for primary
> installations.
>
> But its a pain in the arse for patches.

Interesting aspect, I started my experiences with R3 with the current
release 3.0.2, so right now, I wasn't in need to install patches.
BTW, are there any patches around for R3? Or a version higher than 3.0.2?

AFAIK, both APT and RPM packaging systems have the possibility to update
existing packages. So, provided that new versions are always shipped as
APT or RPM packages, it should be no problem (in theory). What were your
exact experiences with Ingres R3 patches so far?

>
> Worse is that it has to be run by root. My systems people arent
> too happy with that as they are already overstretched.
>
> And getting it to work on a secondary installation was not as
> much fun as I'd anticipated.

I'm a little bit confused about "primary" and "secondary". Does this
mean two installations / two II_SYSTEMs on one box?

>
> On the whole, I can get used to RPM. But I'd prefer the tar files
> for patches. It would be nice to have the choice.

You *have* the choice. On opensource.ca.com, there is a file
ingres-3.0.2-105-pc-linux-i386-tar.tgz that offers the tratitional
tar/ingbuild way.

> that once you start down the rpm route you have to stay faithful. I'm not
> sure what the implications are of running a patched version that now
> disagrees with what rpm thinks is installed.

You're right, mixing installation methods may be a source of trouble. I
have seen this with other software like apache, sendmail, proftpd that
were initially installed with the distribution shipped RPMs and than
updated using "configure ; make ; make install" -> result: terribly
messed up servers.

Regards
Gerhard

Hi Gerhard,

> > The new RPM is certainly faster for installs. And once you get used
> > to the response file concept its pretty easy for primary
> > installations.
> >
> > But its a pain in the arse for patches.
>
> Interesting aspect, I started my experiences with R3 with the current
> release 3.0.2, so right now, I wasn't in need to install patches. BTW,
> are there any patches around for R3

Yes

Or a version higher than 3.0.2?

Yes my last patch for int.lnx took me to 3.0.3

>
> AFAIK, both APT and RPM packaging systems have the possibility to
> update existing packages. So, provided that new versions are always
> shipped as APT or RPM packages, it should be no problem (in theory).
> What were your exact experiences with Ingres R3 patches so far?

Having to manually make the rpm -ivh --replace blah,blah,blah on the
basis of what is currently installed, and getting it in the right order.
And to remove the the prior versions.

This has a further complication for secondary installations. The
secondary installations rpm packages have to be separately labelled;
So we need to make the correct script using iirpmrename to get it all
right.

>
> >
> > Worse is that it has to be run by root. My systems people arent too
> > happy with that as they are already overstretched.
> >
> > And getting it to work on a secondary installation was not as much
> > fun as I'd anticipated.
>
> I'm a little bit confused about "primary" and "secondary". Does this
> mean two installations / two II_SYSTEMs on one box?

Exactly so. The two versions run separate packages as well as
separate versions. The separat versions is almost inevitable as I keep
the secondary installation for evaluation and testing purposes. Other
people may of course be running a serious installation pair/triplet etc.

>
> >
> > On the whole, I can get used to RPM. But I'd prefer the tar files
> > for patches. It would be nice to have the choice.
>
> You *have* the choice. On opensource.ca.com, there is a file
> ingres-3.0.2-105-pc-linux-i386-tar.tgz that offers the tratitional
> tar/ingbuild way.

Thats for a PC. I'm not running on a PC.
So far - I've only got the RPM files to play with, but the guys at
CA/IngresCorp seemed to think the tars should be on their way.

>
> > that once you start down the rpm route you have to stay faithful.
> > I'm not sure what the implications are of running a patched version
> > that now disagrees with what rpm thinks is installed.
>
> You're right, mixing installation methods may be a source of trouble.
> I have seen this with other software like apache, sendmail, proftpd
> that were initially installed with the distribution shipped RPMs and
> than updated using "configure ; make ; make install" -> result:
> terribly messed up servers.

I have the suspicion you may be right. I'll test it out one day,
because, although I'm now aware of what RPM tricks to play, its still a
nuisance having to get root involved.

Marty

--
Random Farscape Quote #11:
John - Hey Astro-Boy. Fix now, freak later.
Stark - How much later?

wrote in message
news:mailman.1134742081.17306.info-ingres-at-cariboulake.com...
> The new RPM is certainly faster for installs. And once you get
> used to the response file concept its pretty easy for primary
> installations.
>
> But its a pain in the arse for patches.

Autopackage is the future. That, and good ol' tar balls (zipped if you want
to be fancy). The sooner the RPM/Apt/etc Tower of Babel comes down the
better.

Roy