Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha

From: Ryan Kirkpatrick <rkirkpat(at)nag(dot)cs(dot)colorado(dot)edu>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Date: 1999-07-29 17:04:54
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.10.9907291055590.4356-100000@excelsior.rkirkpat.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

On Thu, 29 Jul 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> OK. Another tack would be to do what you suggest on the main tree, and
> then backpatch using diffs on the entire tree. Then we can release on
> the v6.5.x branch as we would have liked.
>
> I'll be happy to attempt the backpatching, and if I fail then we can
> proceed with a v6.5.2 release based on the main tree. But I'm more
> comfortable knowing that we've inspected every patch, and included
> only those which address something significant.

I will leave you guys to the finer points of source tree
management (still learning all of the capablities of cvs myself).

> Does this sound unrealistic? I'm guessing that the backpatching can
> happen fairly easily, but I don't understand why someone just reported
> 3.5MB of diffs. Hmm, how much of those diffs are on the docs tree? I
> did make a bunch of changes to get the man pages going, and they
> aren't relevant for v6.5.2 which could be limited to the src/ tree.

I was the one who reported the 3.5MB of diffs. And yes, I did
check to see how many of them were docs, only about 20% of the total
diffs. :( I simply took an alpha patched snapshot from today and diffed it
against the 6.5.1 release (after removing all of the CVS directories from
the latter).
I still think that backpatching to create an "alpha" patch for
6.5.1 is a bad idea and a waste of time. It is also a waste of time for
distribution packagers who have deal with applying yet another patch to
the distribution source tree, and everything involved with that. Also,
there are those who just want to get the source and compile pgsql for
thier own use themselves, and many of them don't like having to mess with
patches. Overall, it just adds unnecessary work and complexity to the
release of a "Linux/Alpha Ready" version of pgsql.
IMHO a 6.5.2 release with all of the necessary alpha patches
already in the distribution source tree is a much cleaner, clearer
solution, for distribution packagers, average users, and
compile-it-yourself-people.
My two cents. TTYL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." |
| --- Philippians 1:21 (KJV) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ryan Kirkpatrick | Boulder, Colorado | rkirkpat(at)nag(dot)cs(dot)colorado(dot)edu |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| http://www-ugrad.cs.colorado.edu/~rkirkpat/ |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-29 17:08:38 Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-29 17:03:43 Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-29 17:08:38 Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-29 17:03:43 Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha