On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 17:11:08 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > > On Sun, 2012-09-23 at 09:24 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > > > Please unblock package osm2pgsql. > > > > Latest version (which should've been -2, but I've messed up with the > > changelog, and didn't notice it was -3 only after the dput) fixes RC bug > > #687965. > > The bug report indicates that database tables would need to be rebuilt > in line with the 32- to 64-bit change. Would that happen automatically, > or is it something that users are expected to do after upgrading?
They're expected to do that on their own. However, I noticed that osm2pgsql/testing already used BIGINT columns for osm_id (BIGINT == int_8), maybe for some other bug of the software (which created 64 bit columns even though one asked for 32 bit). I haven't checked the version in stable. Now the change has been made more explicit in the code; end users (of testing) shouldn't notice much of a difference. Should I add a short notice to NEWS.Debian, or the like, for stable users? Thanks, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
