[Pkg-postgresql-public] ip4r versioning and dependencies in debian

Christoph Berg myon at debian.org
Tue May 21 03:29:30 UTC 2013

[Ccing the packagers list]

Re: Kristian Larsson 2013-05-19 <5198D14C.4090107 at spritelink.net>
> Dear Christoph,
> I was in contact with Robert Edmonds on getting ip4r2.0 in debian which
> seemed to have happenednowand given that he is no longer listed as
> maintainer, I suppose you have taken over ownership of the ip4r package!?:)

Hi Kristian,

yes, Robert was so kind to allow me to take over.

> Anyway, I have a debian package that depends on having ip4r installed.
> At installation time, it collects some information from the user and
> helps to automatically setup the database environment, which includes
> installing ip4r, which is done by 'CREATE EXTENSION ip4r'. The package
> depends on postgresql but does not at this time depend on ip4r so the
> user will need to make sure that is installed before even trying to
> install my package. The current name of the ip4r package is
> postgresql-9.1-ip4r and I would like to avoid depending on this package
> as things would break with the release of postgresql-9.2. Doyou think it
> would be possible to also add a meta-package called postgresql-ip4r that
> in turn depends on postgresql-X-ip4r?

The problem with that is that it doesn't really solve the problem. If
we just add a "Provides: postgresql-ip4r", on the next postgresql-x.y
upgrade, the Provides will still be satisfy by the old package being
installed, so that doesn't automatically upgrade also ip4r. If we
provide a real meta-package, things get a bit better, but last time we
discussed this there were still issues (that I forgot).

Before I add a meta-package to ip4r, we should come up with a policy
of how to do this for all the modules packages we have.

* Would probably fix the "extension upgrade" problem
* Might be easier for users to use

* It adds a binary meta package to all modules packages that otherwise
  would only (usually) build a single, very small package
* Needs to be kept updated (pg_buildext could automate it)

Does anyone on the list have an opinion about this?

cb at df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-postgresql-public/attachments/20130520/885ed812/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-postgresql-public mailing list