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

Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: charpent(at)bacbuc(dot)fdn(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Beta2 ... ?
Date: 2001-01-07 21:14:09
Message-ID: 3A58DC21.BE09302D@wgcr.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>   >Tom Lane wrote:
>   >> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
>   >> > I am inclined to wait until a Release Candidate, if we have one this go
>   >> > around, is available before releasing RPM's, but my mind can be
>   >> > changed.... :-)

>   >> Please do make beta RPMs available.  Seems to me that there's a
>   >> fair-size population of potential beta testers that we're shutting
>   >> out of the process if we don't put out RPMs.  Losing available beta
>   >> testing work is not a good project management practice ...

>   >I'd like to argue for .deb Debian packages as well, for similar reasons.
>   >But I'm aware that those are harder to produce, and that Oliver Elphick
>   >is almost alone on this task.
 
> I'll be doing it soon; but I don't want to release debs until there is
> no more chance of an initdb's being needed between betas; that bit me on
> 7.0.

Well, it bit me too -- which is one of the lesser reasons why I have
been reluctant to release RPM's before a release candidate.  However, if
someone wants to beta test the packaging (which, incidentally, is made
substantially easier with 7.1) of the new release, then they should
expect the results -- for instance, Red Hat doesn't guarantee that you
will be able to upgrade from their public beta test OS releases to any
future release (more than likely you _will_ be able to, but not
necessarily).  Only official releases are 'upgradeable'.  I would
suggest, as I am doing myself, to release beta-grade packages for
testing _only_, with the proper disclaimers.

But, I don't see how debs are harder to produce than RPMs -- and while I
do have some help from RedHat, SuSE, and others, that help seems to be
more towards their distribution rather than towards PostgreSQL -- ie,
they go their own way for the most part.  Each distribution using RPM's
has its own arcane rules -- and some of those rules make little sense
from the PostgreSQL point of view.  And, I don't blame them one whit for
that -- they are, after all, employed for the purpose of making a
distribution, not a PostgreSQL package.  
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-01-07 21:38:25
Subject: heap_update is broken in current sources
Previous:From: bpalmerDate: 2001-01-07 19:05:44
Subject: Re: CVS regression test failure on OBSD

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