Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
On 10/02/2013 07:11 AM, Markus Wanner wrote: Does this all make sense to you? Did I miss anything? Can I finalize 2.1.0-4 for upload to unstable? (Which again needs a sponsor due to the renaming). I finalized 2.1.0-4. Can somebody please review and sponsor the upload? Regards Markus Wanner signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
I'll do it tomorrow if no one has done it first. Il giorno 20/ott/2013, alle ore 22:16, Markus Wanner mar...@bluegap.ch ha scritto: On 10/02/2013 07:11 AM, Markus Wanner wrote: Does this all make sense to you? Did I miss anything? Can I finalize 2.1.0-4 for upload to unstable? (Which again needs a sponsor due to the renaming). I finalized 2.1.0-4. Can somebody please review and sponsor the upload? Regards Markus Wanner ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
Markus,
Is the package postgis-gui (or postgis-2.0-gui) still available with all
your updates?
Regards,
Alan
On 13-10-02 01:11 AM, Markus Wanner wrote:
Christoph, Marco,
I renamed the scripts package(s) to exclude the postgis version. That
hopefully simplifies packaging newer PostGIS versions in the future. And
keeps us from having to maintain an increasing amount of transitional
packages.
I tweaked the can safely be removed wording in the long description a
bit. However, please also keep in mind that the upgrade already makes
postgis-2.0 un-creatable. A postgis-2.0 package installed, the
transitional package cannot be removed due its dependency, though.
As discussed, I also automated the creation of .postinst, .templates,
and .config files for all transitional *-postgis-2.0-scripts packages.
Meaning these get created from debian/rules at build time.
I figured we best use debian/pgversions and subtract the Postgres
versions that were not supported by the former Postgis version. So that
we don't create postgresql-9.3-postgis-2.0-scripts, for example.
This however means we don't create postgresql-8.4-postgis-2.0-scripts,
either. Which I think is a good thing. Upon upgrade, the user won't get
a warning for 8.4-postgis-2.0, that way. I'd argue that's okay, as the
extension provided by postgresql-8.4-postgis-2.0{,-scripts} can continue
to work perfectly fine (including scripts), because there's no
postgis-2.1-scripts package to override it. And Debian usually doesn't
emit a notice in case support for a package runs out...
That also saves us from doing tricks with determining the set of old PG
versions supported depending on pgdg vs Debian proper.
Note: on Debian, this also means we don't ship a transitional
postgresql-9.1-postgis-2.0-scripts package. Its postgis 2.0 will
continue to work just fine. Once you add the pgapt repository and
upgrade, you'd still get that notice, though (and the breakage).
What I didn't look at are translations. Lintian emits a warning, but
other than that, upgrades present me the English message. Given the
notice doesn't ever appear on Debian proper, so far, can we do without
translations (i.e. for pgapt)?
On top of that, I've been unable to merge the debconf templates. My
testing seems to indicate you cannot have a common 'templates' file
shared between multiple packages. If you know of a way to do that,
please let me know. In any case, due to the automatic generation, they
all stem from a single
postgresql-generic-postgis-2.0-scripts.templates.in, anyways, now.
However, this might make translations even harder...
Does this all make sense to you? Did I miss anything? Can I finalize
2.1.0-4 for upload to unstable? (Which again needs a sponsor due to the
renaming).
Regards
Markus Wanner
___
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list
Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
--
Alan Boudreault
http://www.mapgears.com/
___
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list
Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
Markus, I think this was a very minor change we did in the Ubuntu package, and probably not push in the git. However, i still think that it would be good to split. Most people don't want to install all gtk2 libs and dependencies on their server when they only need command line tools. What do you think? Thanks, Alan On 13-10-02 01:57 PM, Markus Wanner wrote: Alan, On 10/02/2013 02:40 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote: Is the package postgis-gui (or postgis-2.0-gui) still available with all your updates? Still? I don't think it has ever been. I certainly don't find it anywhere on packages.debian.org, ATM. If you're just looking for the shp2pgsql-gui binary, that's in the postgis package. Given that one ships only 4 binaries (plus *cough* 3 *cough* man pages), I really don't think it's worth splitting it up. Regards Markus Wanner -- Alan Boudreault http://www.mapgears.com/ ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
Markus, We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok? Thanks, Alan On 13-10-02 02:09 PM, Markus Wanner wrote: On 10/02/2013 08:05 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote: I think this was a very minor change we did in the Ubuntu package, and probably not push in the git. However, i still think that it would be good to split. Most people don't want to install all gtk2 libs and dependencies on their server when they only need command line tools. I understand that argument. My focus is on getting 2.1 into testing, though. And making upgrades safe in the sense that they don't break your database. I hope for your understanding. Please file a bug, if there isn't one, already. Regards Markus Wanner -- Alan Boudreault http://www.mapgears.com/ ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote: We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok? Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather huge renaming diff to fix upgrades. See my original mail. After 2.1.0-4 has been uploaded, that's certainly fine with me, thanks. Regards Markus signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 10/02/2013 08:20 PM, Markus Wanner wrote: On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote: We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok? Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather huge renaming diff to fix upgrades. See my original mail. Any objection to pushing it to an Ubuntu specific branch? We have distribution specific branches in the MapServer repository for example. Just don't push to master now. Regards, Bas - -- GnuPG: 0xE88D4AF1 (new) / 0x77A975AD (old) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSTGdlAAoJEGdQ8QrojUrxLV8P/R1xEpmZERlF7pcv77nKshD7 SguGjz/3IiS18tpoPiPiHLIg0n2bKpPaPQtoKSvMarw2N5rkpr7riTuSK0HwwUW8 6OJpjUlTgPUDJ/IA05ejqnczvox1z9AAfR7IqLzEuTPsUgidI56L6PlTRPkcFn9F fJplfNBZhWJPvlFFockJ/ZllqqMvZ04sKWJIC9K/MDkPZ0EmV8fgoII09/zHKthS WsvROzG/TA7+WkfKFzSrVlwvP2nGUScmTH2rMesFjRRuE6IEddeR5qCSCCVQxYID 2XFlxB+pQYZrO7ynpII3Wp7UWybj7nbZbk6O1qIohyqPBBlLMwxU3s/cdMUzNsWl I+GGZQuE8C10CRae7EOzXdWJCwAvtW47cmHtOompc1X5c9j3rJSceFt7gplRDrXK 9e/XHR/0wru0VOWaRO602q8ztQi/6xhNNpkYBMvoArqx7YF7Iw89rCpibXuQwF70 B7rd43Ylu8sic2OMY8CF9NDgrq2f6/sKOPJR4mDU590x3pfFA0dylpU70eH6bg9N pjI8BCLHA9auK2rRWXagCAiHAw+xXwcbdHQvFCCoHkylohazK/5K2Sqtv+Pjxmet pxJFk/ucdtjUzDbsfe2REUaLhJk3BKbnBgke3eiydvHhJJNnEuzz4iN3Pwu8HWQC 1X6AOKncTO4WeAM7V2dU =pZVS -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: postgis: sid vs pgapt
On 10/02/2013 08:35 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: On 10/02/2013 08:20 PM, Markus Wanner wrote: On 10/02/2013 08:19 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote: We'll do the change and push into the git repository. Is it ok? Not at the moment, please. We're in the middle of landing a rather huge renaming diff to fix upgrades. See my original mail. Any objection to pushing it to an Ubuntu specific branch? No objection. If it doesn't have any 2.1-ish revision, you're safe. Otherwise, you're unlikely to breake it any harder than it already is :-( For the sake of completeness: upgrades from 2.0 to 2.1 (= 2.1.0-4~) result in conflicts on postgis.control, so 2.1 is not installable. If a user didn't have any postgis-2.0 package installed, he should be fine. Regards Markus Wanner signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
