Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.2.23 packages?

From: Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-pkg-debian(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Date: 2012-04-15 08:38:30
Message-ID: 20120415083830.GA12392@msgid.df7cb.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-pkg-debian
Re: Magnus Hagander 2012-04-11 <CABUevEwTswYhj7CwtwVuT_cMoTB5-SVdwQ7JjjxjZTz9JJCe=Q(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:52, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de> wrote:
> > Hmm. I had actually replied earlier, but I cannot find any traces of
> > this in my mail logs. Apparently mutt ate the mail while still putting
> > a copy in the local folder.
> 
> Wow. mutt failing. I'm not used to *that* happening :-)

(I'm still wondering what happened there. There's no postfix syslog
entries for that full day, so the mail was either completely eaten by
mutt, or postfix. Both of which is weird.)

> Also - putting it in debian backports doesn't solve the Ubuntu
> problem, does it? We currently have Martin's PPA for that, but
> wouldn't it be Kind Of Neat (TM) to have a single solution for both
> these scenarios?

If it works for Debian backports, the same should probably work for
the Ubuntu backports. (The problem there might be that they have
different minimum versions, so while squeeze-backports might support
8.4-and-up, Ubuntu backports might only have 9.0-and-up.)

Generally, yes, Ubuntu should be supported by whatever solution. I
haven't created any Ubuntu distributions on pgapt.debian.net yet
because there's already enough targets for now.

> And for the record, I don't really like the concept of PPAs for this.
> Not necessarily from a technical perspective, that works just fine.
> But it's really annoying to have to explain to "enterprise" customers
> that "yes, using a *personal* package archive is the proper way to get
> your fully supported version".

Nod. What we could do is to use PPAs to get the buildd part covered,
and then pull packages from there to the "official" archive.

> > Currently only me, but so far no one else has asked for access. (I
> > didn't ask very hard, though.)
> 
> Let's make sure the process is documented enough that it's easy to
> scale, eh? ;) bus-factors are bad...

I'll try to post some of my thoughts on the whole process here.


Re: Peter Eisentraut 2012-04-14 <1334399550(dot)9019(dot)37(dot)camel(at)vanquo(dot)pezone(dot)net>
> On ons, 2012-04-11 at 10:14 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > Could we in theory have our own buildds if we run this elsewhere? I
> > know very little about buildds, so I wouldn't know. And it might be
> > doable but just too much work - so please inform me :-)
> 
> I don't think having autobuilders is really a priority for this.  As
> long as we only support i386 and amd64, you might as well have someone
> fill in the missing builds manually.  Having a full autobuilder
> infrastructure is likely to be more work than that.

From my POV, they are essential. There's so many targets to cover that
so far most of the time I spent on the project was just building
packages: For the server packages, that's 9.1/9.0/...,
sid/squeeze/lenny, amd64/i386 (add Debian/Ubuntu later), for the
modules packages that's sid/squeeze/lenny, amd64/i386 for every module
included.

> With that in mind, I am somewhat doubtful about the integration with
> backports.d.o.  It sounds nice in general, but the goals and constraints
> of either project are not exactly aligned, so this will lead to
> permanent conflict.

Agreed. I still think that the support for PG versions on
backports.d.o should become better, but the necessary changes will be
the same as for pgapt.d.n.

> 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.


Re: Magnus Hagander 2012-04-14 <CABUevEzxkg4gOhZaBqUqm4aEWxeE9+r=pYS_ces_=3eWvLvfGg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> Having an automatic build environment is of course useful anyway. But
> there are a lot of levels between a full infrastructure to do all of
> it, and just a couple of scripts...

The messy part is figuring out what to actually build. Building that
is then just a script.

I do have some semi-ready sql queries for that which I should either
finish or explain to someone else what I think they should do.

> > With that in mind, I am somewhat doubtful about the integration with
> > backports.d.o.  It sounds nice in general, but the goals and constraints
> > of either project are not exactly aligned, so this will lead to
> > permanent conflict.
> 
> That's what I'm worried about as well. It got very clear to me with
> the decision to drop 9.0 from backports (regardless of what happens
> with that longterm) just shows that the whole backports project is not
> designed to deal with what at least my goal for this is - which is
> providing a stable platform across combinations of postgresql and
> debian versions, making it possible to move incrementally and
> independently between versions depending on external requirements, not
> on OS requirements.

9.0 is still present on backports.debian.org. Though it will probably
require a written policy somewhere to make it stay there.

> That would work for me, plus I'd also really prefer it to be a team
> rather than just one person, to make it less likely that updates get
> delayed due to simple things like overbooking or illness... That's an
> organization question though, and not a technical one.

Yes, definitely.

> FWIW, if we want the repos themselves to run on the postgresql
> infrastructure, we have resources to deploy that really quickly. The
> yum repository was moved to the main infrastructure a few months ago.
> However, we do not currently have resources to host *build nodes*.
> Devrim has a build box that EDB donated that's used to build the RPMs
> on a multitude of differnet virtual machines - it's quite possible
> that this machine could be used to build debian stuff as well, since
> it's just a set of xen (I think, could be kvm) virtual machines after
> all...

I should be able to arrange build nodes. Putting the repos on
*.postgresql.org will be nice. But first let's get it really running.

Oh, btw: I've built and uploaded 8.2.23 for sid/i386. Now there's only
a few builds left to do... (I should finally "upgrade" the notebook to
amd64)

Christoph
-- 
cb(at)df7cb(dot)de | http://www.df7cb.de/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-pkg-debian by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-04-16 10:48:44
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-04-14 11:51:09
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group