[pkg-firebird-general] Bug#549062: firebird 2.0 pending obsoletion

[Damyan Ivanov]

-=| Philippe Makowski, Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:38:27AM +0200 |=-
> Damyan Ivanov  [09-10-01 09.22] :
> > Yeah, 2.5 has some niceties I want to try too. The problem is that 
> > packages need more work:
> > 
> >  - [critical] write debian/copyright
> >  - test the -superclassic package
> >  - put the fbtrace stuff somewhere (different package? -*server 
> >    packages? is it different when built for 
> >    classic/super/superclassic?)
> > 
> For rpm, I will wait RC1
> 2.5 is still a moving target

Yes but since it will be a separate package, not replacing 2.1 (or 
2.0), I can afford the risk of uploading a Beta. Perhaps I shall go 
with the 'experimental' distribution first, just to make it clear this 
is not yet a production grade software.

I'd like an early upload in order to get broader testing and provide 
some time for possible packaging bugs to be ironed out.

> be aware of CORE-2601

Sounds interesting. I currently use a brute-force approach that 
doesn't rely on "make install" at all -- I pick wanted bits out of the 
compiled tree in gen/firebird. I'll try with the new configure options 
and see how it goes.

> and for what I know classic and superclassic are built the same way
> but not superserver
> the only common binaries files added are fbguard and ib_udf.so

Not ib_util.so and fbtrace? That'd be pitty.
I wanted to put ib_util.so in a separate package (and install the 
sofile in /usr/lib) in order to help UDF authors.

(which reminds me that I need to ping firebird-devel about CORE-2465)

fbtrace also sounds like a candidate for a separate package if it can 
work with all server flavours.

-- 
dam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-firebird-general/attachments/20091002/f959c549/attachment.pgp>