On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 20:12, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de> wrote:
> Re: Magnus Hagander 2012-04-16 <CABUevEzY6K_w8YjPgLAUjdqxYPCBZJWGhBBtRS6R742zFCS_dw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
>> I wasn't aware backports.debian.org could be used for ubuntu :-) My
>> mistake in that case...
> No it can't, but there are backport repositories on ubuntu.com.
>> Also - neither one of those two is good enough of course, since
>> PostgreSQL 8.3 is still supported...
> Right. (Though from a Debian perspective, having >= 8.4 supported
> solves kind of 90% of the problem.)
Yes - that's one of the reasons why I think we need something that
works from a *postgresql* perspective rather than a debian or ubuntu
>> > I'll try to post some of my thoughts on the whole process here.
>> Maybe set up a wiki page? Or if there is want/need, I can set up a
>> project at redmine.postgresql.org (i know the RPM builders have their
>> own trac instance with tickets and such things, though not as much
>> documentation as one would want there either).
> I've put a rough TODO list at
Just a few quick notes:
I assume bzr is required in order to work well with the debian
buildbots and such? If not, why use a different scm than all other
postgres projects? (If that is the reason, then it's a good one, of
>> Well, if we move the responsibility for maintaining it to
>> postgresql.org instead of backports.org (ignore the domain names at
>> this point, I'm talkinga bout the organisations), that will make it
>> easier in the long run to always adhere to the PostgreSQL support
>> policy - which covers more than the backports one. If we do have a
>> proper working and fully supported pg repository there, is there any
>> point to keep postgres in debian backports *at all*? Well, they can be
>> kept there of course, but is there ever any reason to recommend it?
> Ideally, the packages would be the same. Completely dropping backports
> will probably not work, as there might be other backports depending on
> something from our packages, and that needs to be there so
> (build-)dependencies work.
>> >> 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.
>> 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
> Sure. Let's try to find a plan that will work :)
>> > 9.0 is still present on backports.debian.org. Though it will probably
>> > require a written policy somewhere to make it stay there.
>> Yes. It is. But there is a written statement today saying *it will go away*.
> Btw, where?
>> Just to be clear - what's actually needed to run that? A simple http
>> server is all, right? And then Some Way (TM) of getting the packages
>> onto it, like rsync or just scp?
> Exactly. The repository is driven by reprepro, this could either also
> run on this host, or there could be a different pgapt-master machine
> that hosts the master copy which then gets pushed to the public
Ok. That's something we can trivially put up there.
>> (FWIW, the infrastructure currently runs on squeeze, so if debian
>> specifics are necessary, that can certainly be dealt with)
> reprepro is heavily using BDB files, I don't think there would be any
> portability problems, but being on Debian is of course even easier.
> (There's probably going to be some "real" database too for the
> autobuild infrastructure, but this could be even another separate
Right. And for some strange reason, we have this "postgreeeee" thing
running on our infrastructure boxes, and it seems to run pretty well..
In response to
pgsql-pkg-debian by date
|Next:||From: Christoph Berg||Date: 2012-04-20 15:27:08|
|Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?|
|Previous:||From: Christoph Berg||Date: 2012-04-19 18:12:37|
|Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?|