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

Re: 8.2.23 packages?

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-pkg-debian(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Date: 2012-04-20 12:48:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-pkg-debian
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 could be used for ubuntu :-) My
>> mistake in that case...
> No it can't, but there are backport repositories on

Ah, right.

>> 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 (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
>> 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
> Nod.
>> 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.

Good point.

>> >> 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
> mirror(s).

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
> host.)

Right. And for some strange reason, we have this "postgreeeee" thing
running on our infrastructure boxes, and it seems to run pretty well..

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-pkg-debian by date

Next:From: Christoph BergDate: 2012-04-20 15:27:08
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?
Previous:From: Christoph BergDate: 2012-04-19 18:12:37
Subject: Re: 8.2.23 packages?

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