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

Re: 8.2.23 packages?

From: Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-pkg-debian(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Date: 2012-04-19 18:12:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-pkg-debian
Re: Magnus Hagander 2012-04-16 <CABUevEzY6K_w8YjPgLAUjdqxYPCBZJWGhBBtRS6R742zFCS_dw(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> I wasn't aware could be used for ubuntu :-) My
> mistake in that case...

No it can't, but there are backport repositories on

> 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.)

> > 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 (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

> Well, if we move the responsibility for maintaining it to
> instead of (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, 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
> again...

Sure. Let's try to find a plan that will work :)

> > 9.0 is still present on 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

> (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

cb(at)df7cb(dot)de |

In response to


pgsql-pkg-debian by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-04-20 12:48:13
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-04-16 19:06:31
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group