On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9 July 2012 12:21, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> On 9 July 2012 10:44, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It gets pushed periodically when I remember to do it (or someone
>>>> reminds me), which I guess you've forgotten given that we've had this
>>>> exact same discussion before.
>>>
>>> That highlights a key flaw.
>>>
>>> If we distribute RPMs then the SRPMs should exactly match. If they
>>> don't, that's a pretty serious set of bugs we're introducing.
>>>
>>> Can I suggest that the process be changed? Push the SRPM code, then
>>> generate RPMs from the released SRPM code. That way there is no
>>> opportunity to forget anything. This is a substantial security
>>> concern, not just a forgotten task.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it would be useful to have a "build farm" that builds the RPMs
>>> from SRPMs automatically, then we will have no need for manually
>>> updating the RPMs at all. (And I mean build all binaries from publicly
>>> available build scripts).
>>
>> We're not talking about RPMs here.
>
> I am discussing the relationship of SRPMs and RPMs, which is a valid
> point on this thread given the point that the RPMs and SRPMs have been
> mismatched for some time and that the current process calls for manual
> rather than automatic synchronisation.
I have no idea if that is true for the RPMs - as I said, we haven't
been discussing them.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company