[Fwd: [Pkg-postgresql-private] New packaging system - ancillary packages]

[Martin Pitt]

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi *,

On 2004-01-05 21:40 +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> I sent this before Christmas, but I don't think it got through to people:

Oh, sorry for that! I read it but in fact I'm not so sure about that.

> I've started to build the separate packages for different major versions
> of PostgreSQL and am wondering what to do about some of the binary
> packages. =20

That's great! Does that already work so good?

BTW, will you also include 7.2 that it can go into sarge to provide a
smooth upgrade from woody?

> So this is a request for advice and input.

Hmm, I'm afraid I know too little about older postgresql packages and
all this auxillary stuff...

> There are packages such as python-pygresql and the -dev packages and the
> obscure libraries that I don't think should be duplicated along with the
> main ones.

That sounds reasonable. But are newer versions of e. g. the perl and
python interfaces compatible to older postgresql versions? I could
test perl, but I've never wrote a single word in python and never used
a C++ interface.

> What I'm thinking at the moment is that postgresql7.4-dev should
> conflict with postgresql7.3-dev, so that only one of these will be
> installed, presumably the latest one.

Then maybe it should just be called postgresql-dev (of the newest
versions) and we should not provide development packages of older
versions? This would both encourage upgrades to newer versions and
transition to newer upstream versions is easier (no hell of Conflicts,
Provides, Depends and so on).

> I don't propose to bother to build libpqpp at all, since I'm not
> aware that anyone uses it.

Since it isn't in sarge or sid, I presume you mean the version from
woody? I agree with you.

> I wonder though which ancillary packages you think should be
> duplicated?  The minimum is: postgresql, postgresql-client,
> postgresql-contrib, libpq3 where it differs substantially and
> postgresql-doc.  What others do you want to see?

Is that really a question of desire? To me, it looks more like a
question of downward compatibility (i. e. if the newest pygresql works
fine with 7.2, then one package should suffice).

Nothing really substantial in here, but at least you don't talk
against walls :-) (that's a German proverb)

Have a nice evening!

Martin
--=20
Martin Pitt                 Debian GNU/Linux Developer
martin@piware.de                      mpitt@debian.org
http://www.piware.de             http://www.debian.org

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/+xFyDecnbV4Fd/IRAmtgAJ9kpganKz6rCjkxWjt7/oxr6q5RggCg8t3Y
/oE7yv49DY3vxd7aE1cnue0=
=qpEA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--xXmbgvnjoT4axfJE--