Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 5 May 2005, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> The one thing that seems conspicuously outstanding is the handling of
>> the altperl tools in RPM packaging.
>>
>> Devrim Gunduz has been working on this, and it appears that it is very
>> close to working.  If we can get to the point of it actually working,
>> which I think just involves choosing a place for the Perl scripts to go,
>> then that is a clear level of readiness for this.
>
>
> Ok, I have a new patch that seems to fix all our problems:
>
> http://postgresql.gunduz.org/slony/patches/slony-rpm.patch
>
> This patch:
>
> 1. Modifies the spec.in file for rpm builds.
> 2. Changes slon_tools.conf to slon_tools.conf-sample in tools/altperl/ .
> slon_tools.conf is a non-existent file and breaks RPM dependencies.
>
> On Red Hat EL ES 4 both make and make rpm worked.
>
> Could you please review and apply it?

I have one issue with it, namely the proposed changes to various Perl
scripts thus:

replacing...
! $CONFIG_FILE = '@@SYSCONFDIR@@/slon_tools.conf';

with...
! $CONFIG_FILE = '@@SYSCONFDIR@@/slon_tools.conf-sample';

I don't think we should change all the scripts to automatically refer
what is very clearly a sample file.

The sample is just that, a sample that should get edited and renamed to
slon_tools.conf before scripts try to use it.

I have committed all but the
"s/slon_tools.conf/slon_tools.conf-sample/g" changes. 

Personally, I don't think that the default filename should be changed. 
The scripts will indeed break when they discover they haven't a config
file.  That strikes me as being consistent with the installation output:

  echo "Slony1 has been successfully installed. Before running Slony1,"
  echo "be sure to edit /etc/slon.conf-sample and rename it to"
  echo "/etc/slon.conf"

If you don't "be sure to edit" the file, then everything breaks. 

But the sample is hardly a legitimate configuration; I don't think I
want it to "work."

I'm willing to go along with what people agree on; if there a
preponderance of support for changing the default filename to
@@SYSCONFDIR@@/slon_tools.conf-sample, I see no value in fighting any
battles over it.  But it doesn't seem right to me...