On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Damyan Ivanov<d...@debian.org> wrote: > -=| 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.
The id for s390x is now fixed by upstream isc_info_db_impl_linux_s390x = 78 .. http://gitorious.org/firebird-head-mirror/firebird-head-mirror/blobs/master/src/jrd/pag.cpp http://gitorious.org/firebird-head-mirror/firebird-head-mirror/blobs/master/src/jrd/inf_pub.h and now we must request new upstream value for s390 (32 bits) We need to open a bug in firebird tracker , add the patch with new IDs patch for 64 bit version should be rewritten ps:related port issues for 64bit version but on fedora http://www.firebirdnews.org/?p=3155 > > -- > dam > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkqk2FgACgkQHqjlqpcl9jvhCwCeOQfvWMGeMuwKDHxt1mLaCCjW > Y4IAn3IQIkggT11SYhH6eXFi3iAb9T7F > =de1b > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > pkg-firebird-general mailing list > pkg-firebird-gene...@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-firebird-general > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
