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 :-)
> Re: Magnus Hagander 2012-04-10 <CABUevEy=RgLduGz6HKeq+FLvr_WjvmCUpmYfSkFOhbsAhRQV8g(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
>> > What *is* the actual state of this?
>> There was previously a discussion about setting up an
>> apt.postgresql.org(when we created this list as a first step) - has
>> this been completely
>> replaced by the effort to do pgapt.debian.net?
> I am talking with the backports.debian.org people to see if that would
> be a good place to put the whole project (or at least the part for
> 8.4/9.0/9.1). There's a wiki page about it:
> The "9.0" part is currently a problem, because there's only 8.4 and
> 9.1 left in testing/unstable.
Yes. And the same problem is likely to happen again. So it would
really need to be something that's "officially blessed and can't be
changed around again later". But if that can happen, then sure - I'm
just worried here about something that's done and "yeah it works", but
is not fully endorsed by all people.
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
> backports.d.o would have the big advantage that there's buildds that
> would pick up building packages. There is also some plan to implement
> PPAs officially on ftp-master.debian.org, but that will take at least
> months to get started.
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 fully understand the gain from having that :-)
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".
> That said, I have only limited spare time, and I'd definitely need.
heh, yeah, pretty sure we're all in that position, eh? :-)
>> How many people can actually build/push packages there, and what's the
>> update policy?
> 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'd really like to get this information up on www.postgresql.org under
>> downloads to make it easier for people who don't already know where to go,
>> but it needs to be "stabilized" before we can do that. And we need to be
>> able to specify some level of support commitments. (Which means it would be
>> very useful if >1 person can actually do it).
>> We really need something that works the same way the pg community yum
>> repository does for RPMs (I don't care if it's under postgresql.org or
>> debian.net as long as it *works* that way). I've already had several
>> customers drop debian permanently due to the whole "9.0 will be removed
>> from backports" issue, and I'd rather not have more of that happening :S
>> Particularly since I know we have plenty of people in the pg/debian
>> communities who know how to fix this problem...
> Nod. (Currently in a meeting, hopefully a longer answer later.)
In response to
pgsql-pkg-debian by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-04-14 10:32:30|
|Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?|
|Previous:||From: Christoph Berg||Date: 2012-04-11 06:52:04|
|Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?|