-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Pitt a écrit :
> Cédric Villemain [2009-03-15 23:58 +0100]:
>> Any plan for 8.4 pre-beta package ? (Devrim Gunduz provide usefull rpm
>> package,
>> I'd like to have the same in debian).
>>
>> Can it be in the experimental repository ?
>
> So
Cédric Villemain [2009-03-15 23:58 +0100]:
> Any plan for 8.4 pre-beta package ? (Devrim Gunduz provide usefull rpm
> package,
> I'd like to have the same in debian).
>
> Can it be in the experimental repository ?
So far I usually started packaging those with the first public beta
version, but i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Pitt a écrit :
> Gerfried Fuchs [2008-10-06 17:04 +0200]:
>> I'm sorry to have done the addition of pg 8.2 initially, and propably
>> should also be sorry for adding pg 8.3 to backports.org, I thought it
>> would be a service to the users,
>
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 18:07:39 CEST]:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, it's a general Postgres problem, not a Debian one. Upgrading
>> > betwe
Markus Wanner schrieb am Donnerstag, den 09. Oktober 2008:
> Hi,
>
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > That's in fact the option I have most trouble with. Reason is that
> > major upstream releases are roughly maintained for five years. All
> > packages in Lenny main will be supported for Lenny's lifetime,
* Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-06 18:07:39 CEST]:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it's a general Postgres problem, not a Debian one. Upgrading
> > between major versions requires a full dump/restore cycle, for which the
> > downtime
Hi,
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Upgrade to pg8.3, the same that users of testing would have to do. And
> learn to see that backported packages are a moving target that gets
> updated.
The problem only exists because upgrading is not an option. There are
lots of people *wanting* to stick with Postgre
Hi,
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> This is what formorer doesn't like, and honestly, as much as I would
> like to help getting things working again and support postgres users
> here, I have to agree with him.
What solution do you have in mind for people who want Postgres 8.2 on
debian etch (because the
Alexander Wirt [2008-10-10 7:02 +0200]:
> > > So a compromise I can live with is to put it back into unstable (or
> > > even just experimental), but never let it propagate to testing. Then
> > > backports.org can do mechanized backports of updates without being
> mechanized? No.
I meant it in t
Markus Wanner [2008-10-09 22:53 +0200]:
> Can you act as a sponsor for uploading 8.2 packages to experimental or
> unstable?
Of course.
Martin
--
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
--
Sent via pgsql-
Markus Wanner [2008-10-07 20:08 +0200]:
> Okay. Looks like I'm rather trying to join the "official" packaging team
> and bring Postgres 8.2 back alive on testing. We'll soon see how that
> turns out.
That's in fact the option I have most trouble with. Reason is that
major upstream releases are r
Hi,
Martin Pitt wrote:
> That's in fact the option I have most trouble with. Reason is that
> major upstream releases are roughly maintained for five years. All
> packages in Lenny main will be supported for Lenny's lifetime, which
> is in the order of 4 years (time to release plus, say, 3 years u
Markus Wanner wrote:
Hi,
..or simply use another bucket. I'm trying to help Martin Pitt with
general purpose Postgres packaging. Maybe we can revive Postgres 8.2 for
Debian that way. Or do you see any immediate problem with that strategy?
I don't, there are plenty of one off repositories in
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> And the problem is that this scheme defines certain buckets
> of packages such as stable, testing, unstable, volatile, backports, etc.
> that have relationships between them. And unfortunately the maintenance
> model that Markus wants for postgresql-8.2 does not fit
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Not having followed the whole discussion here.. But if location is the
only issue, we could perhaps provide a repository on the postgresql.org
servers for this, in case Debian does not want it on their official ones?
It would be a fallacy to assume that space is the only
Hi,
I enjoy discussing and I think we are getting closer to an understanding
with every mail.
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
It would have to flow from the main pool to backports. I am no
authority here, even though I understand that it might sound a bit like
it, but I don't see the chances for the e
Hi,
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Not having followed the whole discussion here.. But if location is the
> only issue, we could perhaps provide a repository on the postgresql.org
> servers for this, in case Debian does not want it on their official ones?
Thanks for the offer, but location is not reall
Markus Wanner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> If there are no backported packages for any given Postgres major
>> version, what will happen is that a lot of people will be forced to
>> build them from source, which is a lot worse. (There is a reason why
>> PGDG provides RPM for all majo
Hi Markus,
Markus Wanner [2008-10-07 11:08 +0200]:
> Do I understand correctly, that https://code.launchpad.net/postgresql
> currently holds the debian packaging files in a bazaar repository?
It has branches for p-common and 8.3.
http://arch.debian.org/arch/pkg-postgresql/mpitt/ has the branches
Hi,
Martin Pitt wrote:
> So it's not a lot of work, but it must be done regularly and in time.
That's good news. And about my experience when backporting 8.2.9 and
8.2.10 for etch as well.
Do I understand correctly, that https://code.launchpad.net/postgresql
currently holds the debian packaging
Hi,
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> If there are no backported packages for any given Postgres major
> version, what will happen is that a lot of people will be forced to
> build them from source, which is a lot worse. (There is a reason why
> PGDG provides RPM for all major versions, for a lot of Redhat
Hi,
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Then again, that was already required when switching from 8.1 to 8.2.
> And it was never a secret that backports.org is a moving target, just as
> testing is, where the backported versions on backports.org come from.
While that's correct, nobody was forced to do that
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Once Postgres supports in-place upgrades between major versions, this
issue is solved.
It has in the past but apparently the work required in coding and
testing was too much and
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Markus Wanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>
>> On the
>> other hand, I still don't fully understand the problems of not being
>> able to upgrade to pg-8.3 properly. People seem to have been able to
>> upgrade from 8.1 to 8.2, so what's
Hi Markus,
Markus Wanner [2008-10-06 17:34 +0200]:
> Note that these are bugfixes only and backporting those is certainly as
> much work as supporting a new major version. Often enough, this should
> just mean upgrading the sources, without having to adjust anything
> debian specific.
Right. The
Gerfried Fuchs [2008-10-06 17:04 +0200]:
> I'm sorry to have done the addition of pg 8.2 initially, and propably
> should also be sorry for adding pg 8.3 to backports.org, I thought it
> would be a service to the users,
It is, and I think that -8.3 in backports makes perfect sense.
It is what L
Markus Wanner wrote:
> Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Alright, so it was actually my own fault to have done the pg-8.2
> > backports, and I'm sorry for have followed the request to do so.
>
> Don't be sorry. I still appreciate having an up to date Postgres version
> available on etch. (And I still th
Hi,
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Alright, so it was actually my own fault to have done the pg-8.2
> backports, and I'm sorry for have followed the request to do so.
Don't be sorry. I still appreciate having an up to date Postgres version
available on etch. (And I still think it's the right thing to s
Hi Martin,
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Indeed it was quite clear to me right from the beginning that Lenny
> would ship with 8.3 only. I think from the POV of not supporting
> several PostgreSQL versions in stable Debian releases there is no
> disagreement. Etch is an exception because we needed 7.4 to g
Hi Markus,
Markus Wanner [2008-10-02 12:49 +0200]:
> first of all: thanks for packaging Postgres for Debian. I'm willing to
> help with that.
Nice!
> Unfortunately we are stuck with several Postgres 8.2 installations from
> etch backports, which are no longer maintained by the backports, because
30 matches
Mail list logo
