Обсуждение: Bad link for win32/latest

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Bad link for win32/latest

От
Josh Berkus
Дата:
Folks,

http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to 
8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.

--Josh


Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
Robert Treat
Дата:
On Tuesday 23 September 2008 14:08:58 Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to
> 8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.
>

Actually the whole main directory needs to be updated, it isn't listing 8.3.4 
or 8.2.10... http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/ftp/

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 14:08:58 Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to
>> 8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.
>>
> 
> Actually the whole main directory needs to be updated, it isn't listing 8.3.4 
> or 8.2.10... http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/ftp/

I've updated svr1, I *think* that's the master and it should push out
soon :-)

I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions? Did wesay "keep current and one older"? In that case,
thereis some removing
 
to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We also have
source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems we're not
very consistent :-(

If we don't have a policy, let's make one - get your arguments out :-)

//Magnus



Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
"Dave Page"
Дата:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 14:08:58 Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to
>>> 8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.
>>>
>>
>> Actually the whole main directory needs to be updated, it isn't listing 8.3.4
>> or 8.2.10... http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/ftp/
>
> I've updated svr1, I *think* that's the master and it should push out
> soon :-)
>
> I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions? Did we
>  say "keep current and one older"? In that case, there is some removing
> to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
> 10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
> have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We also have
> source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems we're not
> very consistent :-(
>
> If we don't have a policy, let's make one - get your arguments out :-)

Marc was managing that (and the symlinks) iirc. I'm not sure what
rules he was working to.


-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com


Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 14:08:58 Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to
>>>> 8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.
>>>>
>>> Actually the whole main directory needs to be updated, it isn't listing 8.3.4
>>> or 8.2.10... http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/ftp/
>> I've updated svr1, I *think* that's the master and it should push out
>> soon :-)
>>
>> I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions? Did we
>>  say "keep current and one older"? In that case, there is some removing
>> to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
>> 10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
>> have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We also have
>> source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems we're not
>> very consistent :-(
>>
>> If we don't have a policy, let's make one - get your arguments out :-)
> 
> Marc was managing that (and the symlinks) iirc. I'm not sure what
> rules he was working to.
> 

Marc? What's the usual deal?

//Magnus




Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
"Harald Armin Massa"
Дата:
my vote:

>>> I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions? Did we
>>>  say "keep current and one older"? In that case, there is some removing
>>> to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
>>> 10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
>>> have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We also have
>>> source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems we're not
>>> very consistent :-(

I recommend to keep all versions including binaries available. Space is cheap.

Finding a policy is hard.

Finding an old version because only available backup are some rescued
pg_data directories from a harddrive that ended its live in the middle
of a night in the middle of a national holiday is hard.

Of course, officially x.y.n releases are compatible for different n.
But in an emergency I would feel better when not needing this
compatibility.

Harald


--
GHUM Harald Massa
persuadere et programmare
Harald Armin Massa
Spielberger Straße 49
70435 Stuttgart
0173/9409607
no fx, no carrier pigeon
-
EuroPython 2009 will take place in Birmingham - Stay tuned!


Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> my vote:
> 
>>>> I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions? Did we
>>>>  say "keep current and one older"? In that case, there is some removing
>>>> to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
>>>> 10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
>>>> have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We also have
>>>> source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems we're not
>>>> very consistent :-(
> 
> I recommend to keep all versions including binaries available. Space is cheap.

We already have "ftp-archive" which keeps the old stuffthat not so many
people want. It's not a matter of removing it, it's a matter of staging
it off to the other area.

//Magnus



Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
Magnus Hagander
Дата:
On 26 sep 2008, at 13.39, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

> Dave Page wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Magnus Hagander  
>> <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 14:08:58 Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to
>>>>> 8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.
>>>>>
>>>> Actually the whole main directory needs to be updated, it isn't  
>>>> listing 8.3.4
>>>> or 8.2.10... http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/ftp/
>>> I've updated svr1, I *think* that's the master and it should push  
>>> out
>>> soon :-)
>>>
>>> I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions?  
>>> Did we
>>> say "keep current and one older"? In that case, there is some  
>>> removing
>>> to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9  
>>> and
>>> 10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
>>> have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We  
>>> also have
>>> source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems  
>>> we're not
>>> very consistent :-(
>>>
>>> If we don't have a policy, let's make one - get your arguments  
>>> out :-)
>>
>> Marc was managing that (and the symlinks) iirc. I'm not sure what
>> rules he was working to.
>>
>
> Marc? What's the usual deal?
>

Marc? Afaik this has not been resolved yet?

/Magnus



Re: Bad link for win32/latest

От
"Marc G. Fournier"
Дата:
Sorry, not sure why I hadn't answered this thread ... but, I generally try 
and go in after the release has been announced and remove everything -2 
(latest and one release back is kept around, rest is moved to ftp-archive) 
...

It doesn't always work out that way, so there are times when there is 
'everything - 3', but then when I go in and clean up, I move 2 over to 
ftp-archive instead of just the one ...

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> On 26 sep 2008, at 13.39, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 23 September 2008 14:08:58 Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/latest, which should point to
>>>>>> 8.3.4, is still pointing to 8.3.3.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually the whole main directory needs to be updated, it isn't listing 
>>>>> 8.3.4
>>>>> or 8.2.10... http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/ftp/
>>>> I've updated svr1, I *think* that's the master and it should push out
>>>> soon :-)
>>>> 
>>>> I can never remember, on what schedule do we remove old versions? Did we
>>>> say "keep current and one older"? In that case, there is some removing
>>>> to do as well... In binary, for example, we have 8.2.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
>>>> 10 ATM - that just seems like a waste of space to me. For source, we
>>>> have 8.2.7, 9 and 10, and in the 8.3 series 8.3.1, 3 and 4. We also have
>>>> source/OLD which has 8.3.0, 8.2.5 and 8.2.6. All in all, seems we're not
>>>> very consistent :-(
>>>> 
>>>> If we don't have a policy, let's make one - get your arguments out :-)
>>> 
>>> Marc was managing that (and the symlinks) iirc. I'm not sure what
>>> rules he was working to.
>>> 
>> 
>> Marc? What's the usual deal?
>> 
>
> Marc? Afaik this has not been resolved yet?
>
> /Magnus
>

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org                              MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664