Re: 8.2.23 packages?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 8.2.23 packages? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEyzAZHwxNzBaUn-MwD5WXRwh1iGHXD4xv=HS2Vmt8iR1Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 8.2.23 packages? (Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: 8.2.23 packages?
(Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de>)
|
Список | pgsql-pkg-debian |
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 20:12, Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de> wrote: > Re: Magnus Hagander 2012-04-16 <CABUevEzY6K_w8YjPgLAUjdqxYPCBZJWGhBBtRS6R742zFCS_dw@mail.gmail.com> >> I wasn't aware backports.debian.org could be used for ubuntu :-) My >> mistake in that case... > > No it can't, but there are backport repositories on ubuntu.com. Ah, right. >> Also - neither one of those two is good enough of course, since >> PostgreSQL 8.3 is still supported... > > Right. (Though from a Debian perspective, having >= 8.4 supported > solves kind of 90% of the problem.) Yes - that's one of the reasons why I think we need something that works from a *postgresql* perspective rather than a debian or ubuntu one. >> > I'll try to post some of my thoughts on the whole process here. >> >> Maybe set up a wiki page? Or if there is want/need, I can set up a >> project at redmine.postgresql.org (i know the RPM builders have their >> own trac instance with tickets and such things, though not as much >> documentation as one would want there either). > > I've put a rough TODO list at > http://wiki.debian.org/pkg-postgresql/PgaptTodo Just a few quick notes: I assume bzr is required in order to work well with the debian buildbots and such? If not, why use a different scm than all other postgres projects? (If that is the reason, then it's a good one, of course) >> Well, if we move the responsibility for maintaining it to >> postgresql.org instead of backports.org (ignore the domain names at >> this point, I'm talkinga bout the organisations), that will make it >> easier in the long run to always adhere to the PostgreSQL support >> policy - which covers more than the backports one. If we do have a > > Nod. > >> proper working and fully supported pg repository there, is there any >> point to keep postgres in debian backports *at all*? Well, they can be >> kept there of course, but is there ever any reason to recommend it? > > Ideally, the packages would be the same. Completely dropping backports > will probably not work, as there might be other backports depending on > something from our packages, and that needs to be there so > (build-)dependencies work. Good point. >> >> I think taking the current reprepro-based architecture that Christoph >> >> has already running is just fine (modulo some details, such as source >> >> packages missing). We just need to give it a permanent home, so people >> >> can start using it. >> > >> > The missing source packages should be a thing of the past, I only did >> > that for builds where the only difference to some other version was a >> > new changelog entry and rebuilding the package. >> > >> > For the permanent home, I first like to get it more in shape. >> > Imho, pgapt.debian.net is fine for the moment. >> >> If it's not part of a firm, long-term plan, I'm afraid it isn't. >> Larger customers need to *know* that things aren't going to change >> again... > > Sure. Let's try to find a plan that will work :) Yup! >> > 9.0 is still present on backports.debian.org. Though it will probably >> > require a written policy somewhere to make it stay there. >> >> Yes. It is. But there is a written statement today saying *it will go away*. > > Btw, where? http://www.piware.de/2011/09/dropping-postgresql-9-0-packages-for-debianubuntubackports/ >> Just to be clear - what's actually needed to run that? A simple http >> server is all, right? And then Some Way (TM) of getting the packages >> onto it, like rsync or just scp? > > Exactly. The repository is driven by reprepro, this could either also > run on this host, or there could be a different pgapt-master machine > that hosts the master copy which then gets pushed to the public > mirror(s). Ok. That's something we can trivially put up there. >> (FWIW, the infrastructure currently runs on squeeze, so if debian >> specifics are necessary, that can certainly be dealt with) > > reprepro is heavily using BDB files, I don't think there would be any > portability problems, but being on Debian is of course even easier. > (There's probably going to be some "real" database too for the > autobuild infrastructure, but this could be even another separate > host.) Right. And for some strange reason, we have this "postgreeeee" thing running on our infrastructure boxes, and it seems to run pretty well.. ;) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-pkg-debian по дате отправления: