[pkg-firebird-general] Bug#415668: Bug#415668: NMU

[Damyan Ivanov]

-=| Bastian Blank, Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:38:26AM +0200 |=-
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:41:06PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > It would be best if you make sure the ports appear in upstream CVS 
> > first.
> 
> This is your job as maintainer.

Point taken, will submit the patch upstream soon.

What I want to say is that I am against a NMU (or MU) that diverges 
from upstream in this regard.

> >        Otherwise once they implement them with a different 
> >        implementation IDs, the databases created with "official" 
> >        firebird engine will not be openable on Debian on the same 
> >        architecture and vice versa.
> 
> Well, as database admin I assume that I have to dump and load a database
> anyway while moving them to another machine.

This is not necessary with Firebird if the two machines share the same 
architecture (implementation ID in Firebird-speak). I consider this 
a feature and a non-synchronized port would break it when one moves 
the database between packages and non-packaged firebirds. They can 
even be on the same machine. For example If I want to try both 
upstream and packaged Firebird, they shall be able to run whth the 
same database without any dump/restore.

> > How different are s390 and s390x? Are the pointer sizes different 
> > or native integers or alignment rules? Is the s390x port enough 
> > for Debian?
> 
> s390x is the 64bit variant of 31bit s390. Debian still only supports
> s390.

So they are sufficiently different and require separate implementation 
IDs. Thanks.

-- 
dam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-firebird-general/attachments/20090907/7b17313a/attachment.pgp>