[Pkg-postgresql-private] Source separation now complete

[Oliver Elphick]

On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 15:21, Martin Pitt wrote:
> I just uploaded psqlodbc to the cvs which was the last missing
> package to be separated out of the postgresql source tree.
> 
> I fixed a bug here and there, but otherwise the debs are similar to
> the old ones (see detailed dump below).

I suggest that you rename the odbc-postgresql binary package to psqlodbc
to match the source name, and provide a dummy odbc-postgresql binary
package that depends on psqlodbc, with a note in its description that it
can be removed immediately psqlodbc is loaded.  You will in any case
have to give it an epoch, because to dpkg 7.03.200 is less than 7.4.1. 
You will also have to give epochs to the other packages being split off,
since they all have version numbers less than 7.4.1 and are keeping the
same names.

> Oliver, can we then remove the auxillary packages from the source tree
> and also avoid putting the postgresql source tarball into it?
> 
> Since all four new source packages will need some time to get into
> unstable (they will land in NEW I suppose), I would like to upload
> them soon. But as soon as they are in, a new postgresql upload must be
> done to provide plperl.so that was removed from pgperl.

Before they can go in, we will have to upload a version of postgresql
without their binaries, or else they would never be accepted.  Do you
want to go ahead and remove them from postgresql's control file,
debian/rules and so on?  (I've got to do my tax returns this week, so I
haven't really the time.)  I also think we can switch to dpatch from
dbs, now that we have only a single upstream source archive; I think
that should make it possible for postgresql to stop being a native
Debian package and would fix another bug.

>  Since the
> current CVS version fixes 13 bugs (I hope to get even some more
> fixed), this would not be bad anyway, wouldn't it? However, the last
> RC bug should also be fixed by it. Oliver, you had some Ideas about
> this libkrb stuff, are there any news?

My latest update (tonight) will go some way to fix that, but it is a bug
in earlier major versions of the packages which are already on people's
machines, so I can't do all that much.  If someone answers no to the new
debconf question whether he has an up to date backup, the preinst will
clear .../dumpall/7.[23] .  If he does have an up to date backup, he
doesn't really have a problem.

> Another thing: Who should be the eventual maintainer of the new source
> packages? I'm inclined to orphan odbc and plr since nobody of us can
> test them, so I would like to set the maintainer of them to the QA
> group. 

I see we have a volunteer (alioth public list posting); I suggest we
keep the packages under our names while the succession is sorted out, so
that if there are any early packaging bugs we will be able to deal with
them quickly.

> I don't care about the other two (pgperl and pgeasy), if nobody
> wants them I would be able to maintain them (they are not exactly
> hard...).

Thanks a lot for all your work!
-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK                             http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                 ========================================
     "My little children, let us not love in word, neither 
      in tongue; but in deed and in truth."          
                                            I John 3:18