-=| Bastian Blank, Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 10:38:26AM +0200 |=- > On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 11:41:06PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > It would be best if you make sure the ports appear in upstream CVS > > first. > > This is your job as maintainer.
Point taken, will submit the patch upstream soon. What I want to say is that I am against a NMU (or MU) that diverges from upstream in this regard. > > Otherwise once they implement them with a different > > implementation IDs, the databases created with "official" > > firebird engine will not be openable on Debian on the same > > architecture and vice versa. > > Well, as database admin I assume that I have to dump and load a database > anyway while moving them to another machine. This is not necessary with Firebird if the two machines share the same architecture (implementation ID in Firebird-speak). I consider this a feature and a non-synchronized port would break it when one moves the database between packages and non-packaged firebirds. They can even be on the same machine. For example If I want to try both upstream and packaged Firebird, they shall be able to run whth the same database without any dump/restore. > > How different are s390 and s390x? Are the pointer sizes different > > or native integers or alignment rules? Is the s390x port enough > > for Debian? > > s390x is the 64bit variant of 31bit s390. Debian still only supports > s390. So they are sufficiently different and require separate implementation IDs. Thanks. -- dam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
