On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I somehow failed to see activity here and just read the whole thread,
> sorry for jumping that late into it.
No worries, glad to have you here :D
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 04/16/2012 06:48 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:38, Christoph Berg<cb(at)df7cb(dot)de> wrote:
>>>> For the permanent home, I first like to get it more in shape.
>>>> Imho, pgapt.debian.net is fine for the moment.
>>> If it's not part of a firm, long-term plan, I'm afraid it isn't.
>>> Larger customers need to *know* that things aren't going to change
> I vote for creating and hosting the files mainly at apt.postgresql.org
> and having pgapt.debian.net either our developer's site or a mirror.
I think that sounds reasonable.
I'm ready to deploy a box for apt.postgresql.org whenever we're ready
to make some sort of move on it. Perhaps we should do it pre-emptively
and just not add the DNS alias for it yet :D
If so, do we have *any* estimate on amount of disk space? We can
expand as we need, but we need to make sure we put it on a box with
ample host disk space in the first place...
>> I expect demand for this to heat up enough this summer to pull Dimitri back
>> into helping with this again; maybe some other people too. I hope that
>> pulls enough bodies in to nail down something permanent.
> It seems that we are mainly missing two things now:
> - a complete build infrastructure with machines, chroots or VMs,
> scripts to run all the process
> - a team with enough time to actually drive the builds when that's
And a team to build said infrastructure ;)
> Publishing the binaries seems only too well covered as we have already
> two servers at two locations that want to do that.
> I'm going to see how far I can go on my side to provide for more time
> and better organization here, maybe answering (at least in part) those
> two items.
If we can put together a well broken-down list of what we need done,
and a basic location for diong those things, I can contribute to do
some of the work on that as well. I'm no expert in debian packaging,
though I've done it a fair bit for simple stuff, but I can certainly
help to chew away at small items. It's also something that I can do
"during work hours", since we have numerous customers using these
systems that would be very happy to see this resolved...
>> The business case that I expect will fund some of this is backporting the
>> extensions added/improved significantly in 9.2, so they're easier to install
>> on 9.1. In core extensions and PGXN are all nice, but there's a chunk of
>> the market that will want their extensions installed via OS packages
>> instead. And that problem crosses over heavily with this one.
> Yeah, the real deal is OS level packaging + CREATE EXTENSION. Anything
> less is not production grade. Come on we're debian users here, let's not
> be shy.
In response to
pgsql-pkg-debian by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2012-05-03 15:11:46|
|Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2012-05-02 19:37:58|
|Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?|