On 12/26/2011 01:47 PM, reynierpm AT gmail DOT com wrote:
> Thanks Joseph it works like a charm, I did not know about this repo and few 
> days ago I ask about the same in the list and it was
> several answers as for example: symlink  libpq.so.4 to  libpq.so.5, use SuSE 
> repositories and none works until now.
> Cheers and happy new year
> 
> Ing. Reynier Pérez Mira
> Cel: +58 424.180.5609 / +58 416.921.7406
> Correo: reynierpm AT gmail DOT com <mailto:reynierpm AT gmail DOT com> / 
> reynierpm AT hotmail DOT com <mailto:reynierpm AT hotmail DOT com>
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Joseph L. Casale <jcasale AT activenetwerx 
> DOT com <mailto:jcasale AT activenetwerx DOT com>> wrote:
> 
>     >Hi and happy new year to every, I'm just wondering if it's possible to 
> use Bacula with
>     >PostgreSQL 9.1.x because I'm trying several ways and have not luck 
> because it ask for
>     > libpq.so.4. Which is not available at CentOS 6. 
> 
>     >I tried to fake the repos enabling CentOS 5 but then get this other 
> error:
> 
>     I can't imagine a good reason to do ever do that? While I use the 
> provided Postgre
>     packages the fact those packages are built for centos 6 but don’t provide 
> their own
>     non stock deps nor get them from any package in base is concerning. Last 
> time I looked
>     at the spec it was so long and unruly I wasn’t surprised they became 
> impossible to
>     maintain.
> 
>     >So, any help on this?
> 
>     Yes, I can only imagine the packages at that repo are built but not ever 
> tested. If they
>     are tested, the QA environment certainly does not represent a stock setup 
> as you just
>     found one of more issues with them. Now you will encounter other problems 
> when
>     you remove those packages, you'll end up needing to prevent the scripts 
> section from
>     executing as they likely won't work, then be forced to cleanup manually 
> removing old
>     init scripts and working directories etc.
> 
>     Install from a repo that is tested and does work, delete that repo file 
> add the one from
>     Simone Caronni at 
> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/epel-6/x86_64/
> 
>     These packages do work well and the maintainer validates his builds and 
> uses a
>     more thorough build process. He's also responsive to suggestions from the 
> list.
> 
>     Good luck,
>     jlc

The funky things is we build for pure stock release and CentOS 6 has only 
postgresql 8.4.4

jlc : about the cleaning, in rpm way and guidlines (cross-distribution) we 
don't have the right to remove
something that has been touched (there's the purge option for that)
Also you never send any comment or feedback against the package, we're trying 
to build for the community.
emails are in spec, in build environnement etc.

As we are only humans, working for free, sorry we can't get it perfect on the 
first try.

and second point the lenght of the spec, omg the simone has 1160 lines our 1360 
 ... wtf!
sorry bacula is not simple as a plasmoid to package especially when you try to 
get build and working for 12 distributions version.

But at least you are free to not trust the open build system if you want, but 
most of your remarks are just wrong, or fud.

And the last point, I've patched the description of the project, it's a factory 
: so not intended to be used on production yet!


-- 

Bruno Friedmann
Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch

openSUSE Member & Ambassador
GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227
irc: tigerfoot

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create 
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the 
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users