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

Re: 8.2.23 packages?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, pgsql-pkg-debian(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Date: 2012-04-14 11:51:09
Message-ID: CABUevEzxkg4gOhZaBqUqm4aEWxeE9+r=pYS_ces_=3eWvLvfGg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-pkg-debian
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:32, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah; I doubt there are particularly large number of postgresql
installs on debian on more exotic platforms than that.

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...


> 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.


> 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.

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.

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...

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-pkg-debian by date

Next:From: Christoph BergDate: 2012-04-15 08:38:30
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-04-14 10:32:30
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?

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