[Pkg-postgresql-public] postgresql 8.2 packaging

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Markus Wanner <markus at bluegap.ch> [2009-03-01 20:05:23 CET]:
> Hello Gerfried,
> 
> thanks for taking time and answering.
> 
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> >  I don't really understand your question. When a package is in squeeze
> > (as in the release of squeeze) it will stay in there for until squeeze
> > becomes obsolete.
> 
> Okay, cool. That's perfect with me. So, just to avoid any
> misunderstandings: you are saying, that squeeze should provide and
> continuously maintain 8.3 as well as 8.5, right?

 I thought that way - but there were points raised that weren't that
clear to me so far and I guess neither to you: postgres propably won't
maintain 8.3 for as long as we would have to support squeeze. We are
currently stumbling into exactly this problem with postgres 7.4:
Upstream released its last update to it - we will have to keep
maintaining it for another year. This means upstream work within Debian
- and this is nothing we are able to do.

 So I guess I'll have to drop my suggestion in that direction because I
don't plan to do upstream work on the postgresql packages.

> Let's consider the Debian release after squeeze. Am I right is assuming
> that you want that to ship only 8.5 and 8.7 and not 8.3 (given similar
> release timings)?

 Was my thought, but see above.

> >  How would you sanely upgrade from your stable 8.3 package to the next
> > stable 8.5 package if the next stable doesn't have 8.3 packages around
> > so that you still can run it?
> 
> Hm.. so you are saying that the fact, that the Postgres 8.1 package for
> etch worked on lenny is more of a coincidence, than really planned,
> tested and ensured, right?

 Exactly. It most propably though is rare that it won't work, but it's
nothing that one really should depend on, it's nothing guaranteed.

> >  It's also highly propable that etch is still in productive use by more
> > people than lenny. Your point being? That people like to use old stuff?
> > Noone denies that to them.
> 
> My point is that users should be free to upgrade only one of the two
> without being forced into having to upgrade the other as well. Again,
> that's just an opinion, not a request.

 Partially upgrades are partially supported anyway, it occurs to me. It
could work out with keeping etch and lenny sources.list entries, but ...

> (To me it seems you are still trying to tell me that I got the wrong
> problem.)

 No, you are actively requesting a solution where you aren't in the
position to do so and repeatedly deny the reasons outlined to you.

> I'd say, that most people rather don't upgrade Debian than having to
> upgrade Postgres, then.

 I by no means buy that "most", at all. If you go by such claims pretty
please try to back them up with something else than "I'd say", thanks.

> I'm saying that multiple Postgres versions should be part of the Debian
> distribution. And I'm offering to help with that.

 See above, right at the top of my mail.

> >> which is crucial for productive use. That's what leads me to say that
> >> Debian "prevents" users from doing it that way.
> > 
> >  So you claim that Postgres wouldn't ship security and other fixes,
> > preventing users from doing it that way? Because if you word it like
> > that you make it sound it's only Debian's job to do so, for completely
> > everything that's available out there.
> 
> I'm not requesting anything from anybody (except myself). Please stop
> that thinking.

 You are claiming over and over again what Debian should do and Debian
shouldn't do, and that Debian "prevents" users. It would boil down to
exactly that in the end, like it does at the moment for pg 7.4 in etch.

> >  Again, you depend on volunteer work. Again, if you really feel you are
> > in the position to request that thing you should contract someone to do
> > it and not tell others what they should do in their volunteered time.
> 
> All I did is expressing my opinion.

 ... in a way that just sounds like Debian has to do this and Debian has
to do that, and Debian "prevents" users from doing things.

> If the Debian project doesn't want my help or my packages, that's of
> course a bit sad for me, but generally fine with me. However, please
> allow me to continue to maintain my repository and point others who
> might need it there.

 I never denied you to maintain your repository, where did you get that
impression? And if you wouldn't have started with "Debian should do
this and that" and "I do not understand why Debian ignores" there
wouldn't had been any problem. See my first paragraph in this mail,
maybe this helps you finally to understand.

> Overall, I'm glad you are speaking for maintaining at least two major
> Postgres releases per Debian release (that's at least how I understood
> your words).

 Not anymore because I do not want to have to do upstream development
stuff for it, which it would mean at the end of the Debian support
cycle. It's even worse for ubuntu's long time support releases.

 Thanks,
Rhonda