Обсуждение: Need comments about -jdbc packaging

Hi,

While working on a unified -jdbc package, I noticed that we have
PostgreSQL major number appended to package name, version, jar file,
etc.

Do we really need that? This package does not depend on PostgreSQL, so
I think we can remove it.

Attached is the spec file that I intend to push later tonight to git,
so that we can ship this package along with tomorrow's releases.

This package has some comment improvements and conditionals for unified
spec file...

Regards, 
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

Hi Devrim,

I'm not the expert here by any means; I only just got interested in this project when moving from ant to maven became something new and fun to try to put together.  So, feel free to take my opinion for what it is-- just an opinion.

After some research, I found this thread awhile back which might contain helpful information:

http://postgresql.nabble.com/Release-for-9-5-td5873644.html

In short, it says that the team does not want to use postgresql's version number in the artifacts.  This would explain why the current releases of pgjdbc are not prefixed with 9.5, and are still at 9.4.  It is my guess that the numbering of pgjdbc will stay on 9.4 for some time.  But, I think this is sufficient evidence that having a hard dependency on a postgres major version is something that is not needed.  So, I think I agree with your assessment.  If you wanted a second opinion, Dave Cramer might be the best person to comment.

Additionally, I can verify that the if-block's make sense in the combined spec-file.  I tried one of your pre-release specfiles on EL6 and had issues with "add_maven_depmap", "%files -f .mfiles", and the 2 "_javadir" files.  I think the if-blocks are clean, and I approve your new changes with regard to making a combined specfile.

Regards,

  -John

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:

Hi,

While working on a unified -jdbc package, I noticed that we have
PostgreSQL major number appended to package name, version, jar file,
etc.

Do we really need that? This package does not depend on PostgreSQL, so
I think we can remove it.

Attached is the spec file that I intend to push later tonight to git,
so that we can ship this package along with tomorrow's releases.

This package has some comment improvements and conditionals for unified
spec file...

Regards, 
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

Hi Devrim,

Doing a scan of the specfile, I found a few other opportunities:

I am pretty sure that these lines can be removed:

BuildRequires:  jpackage-utils

BuildRequires:  ant

BuildRequires:  ant-junit

BuildRequires:  junit

I am pretty sure that I am able to successfully build without any of these packages.  I think these are legacy requirements from the ant days.

The BuildRequires line for apache-maven should specify 3.0.0 or greater (2.x is a little different):

apache-maven >= 3.0.0

Apart from that, no other issues to report.

Regards,

  -John

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, John Harvey <john.harvey@crunchydata.com> wrote:

Hi Devrim,

I'm not the expert here by any means; I only just got interested in this project when moving from ant to maven became something new and fun to try to put together.  So, feel free to take my opinion for what it is-- just an opinion.

After some research, I found this thread awhile back which might contain helpful information:

http://postgresql.nabble.com/Release-for-9-5-td5873644.html

In short, it says that the team does not want to use postgresql's version number in the artifacts.  This would explain why the current releases of pgjdbc are not prefixed with 9.5, and are still at 9.4.  It is my guess that the numbering of pgjdbc will stay on 9.4 for some time.  But, I think this is sufficient evidence that having a hard dependency on a postgres major version is something that is not needed.  So, I think I agree with your assessment.  If you wanted a second opinion, Dave Cramer might be the best person to comment.

Additionally, I can verify that the if-block's make sense in the combined spec-file.  I tried one of your pre-release specfiles on EL6 and had issues with "add_maven_depmap", "%files -f .mfiles", and the 2 "_javadir" files.  I think the if-blocks are clean, and I approve your new changes with regard to making a combined specfile.

Regards,

  -John

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:

Hi,

While working on a unified -jdbc package, I noticed that we have
PostgreSQL major number appended to package name, version, jar file,
etc.

Do we really need that? This package does not depend on PostgreSQL, so
I think we can remove it.

Attached is the spec file that I intend to push later tonight to git,
so that we can ship this package along with tomorrow's releases.

This package has some comment improvements and conditionals for unified
spec file...

Regards, 
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

One more comment.

The below block doesn't work for me on EL-7:

%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6

# On RHEL 6, we depend on the apache-maven package that we provide via

# our repo. Build servers should not have any other apache-maven package

# from other repos, because they depend on java-1.7.0, which is not supported by pgjdbc.

# Please note that we don't support RHEL 5 for this package.

BuildRequires:  apache-maven

%else

# On the remaining distros, use the maven package supplied by OS.

BuildRequires:  maven

%endif

error: Failed build dependencies:

maven

I think the BuildRequires: apache-maven line should apply to EL-6 and EL-7.  Otherwise, I do not know where to get this dependency for EL-7.

Regards,

  -John

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:56 AM, John Harvey <john.harvey@crunchydata.com> wrote:

Hi Devrim,

Doing a scan of the specfile, I found a few other opportunities:

I am pretty sure that these lines can be removed:

BuildRequires:  jpackage-utils

BuildRequires:  ant

BuildRequires:  ant-junit

BuildRequires:  junit

I am pretty sure that I am able to successfully build without any of these packages.  I think these are legacy requirements from the ant days.

The BuildRequires line for apache-maven should specify 3.0.0 or greater (2.x is a little different):

apache-maven >= 3.0.0

Apart from that, no other issues to report.

Regards,

  -John

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, John Harvey <john.harvey@crunchydata.com> wrote:

Hi Devrim,

I'm not the expert here by any means; I only just got interested in this project when moving from ant to maven became something new and fun to try to put together.  So, feel free to take my opinion for what it is-- just an opinion.

After some research, I found this thread awhile back which might contain helpful information:

http://postgresql.nabble.com/Release-for-9-5-td5873644.html

In short, it says that the team does not want to use postgresql's version number in the artifacts.  This would explain why the current releases of pgjdbc are not prefixed with 9.5, and are still at 9.4.  It is my guess that the numbering of pgjdbc will stay on 9.4 for some time.  But, I think this is sufficient evidence that having a hard dependency on a postgres major version is something that is not needed.  So, I think I agree with your assessment.  If you wanted a second opinion, Dave Cramer might be the best person to comment.

Additionally, I can verify that the if-block's make sense in the combined spec-file.  I tried one of your pre-release specfiles on EL6 and had issues with "add_maven_depmap", "%files -f .mfiles", and the 2 "_javadir" files.  I think the if-blocks are clean, and I approve your new changes with regard to making a combined specfile.

Regards,

  -John

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:

Hi,

While working on a unified -jdbc package, I noticed that we have
PostgreSQL major number appended to package name, version, jar file,
etc.

Do we really need that? This package does not depend on PostgreSQL, so
I think we can remove it.

Attached is the spec file that I intend to push later tonight to git,
so that we can ship this package along with tomorrow's releases.

This package has some comment improvements and conditionals for unified
spec file...

Regards, 
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR