On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:44:22AM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote: > Re: Antonio Terceiro 2017-03-27 <20170326234116.xkcx7wjcyrqsx...@debian.org> > > As you said, it has the issue of not helping with upgrades. > > True... > > > What if, instead of the versioned packages, you provided unversioned > > package names, and each package contained one .so for each supported > > PostgreSQL version? It seems that postgresql-server-dev-all exists for > > exactly this purpose ... > > This has the problem that the set of supported versions varies over > time, and that it's different in Debian, and elsewhere. We would be > shipping a 9.6-only package in Debian, and a package containing > everything from 9.2 to 9.6 on apt.postgresql.org. The necessary > dependencies would be non-trivial I'd think.
We do exactly that in Ruby, and it is manageable. When the set of supported versions change, we update the list in a central place (ruby-defaults), and binNMU/fix existing modules. We also make the dependencies in such a way that a package that contains modules for more than one version depends on the stuff from _one_ of the versions, but not from all of them. Each context (Debian, apt.postgresql.org) could have a different set of supported versions via something similar to dpkg-vendor. Are you opposed to this in principle? Or, would you be willing to support this if the necessary patches are written? (not saying I will do that, or at least not in the short term :-)) > Also this would make it impossible to provide modules packages for the > upcoming PostgreSQL 10 version, because "postgresql-debversion.deb" is > already in use there. Does this mean that for PostgreSQL 10+ the module packages will have no version numbers in their names? Or is that just something you reserve for the very latest version at the time? > I agree that the situation is not optimal, but I think what we have > now is the best we could get to over the past years. Unfortunately > this means you'll need to encode some knowledge about the current > PostgreSQL server version in your deployment recipes. It also means that upgrades don't just work.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
