-=| Philippe Makowski, Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:38:27AM +0200 |=- > Damyan Ivanov [09-10-01 09.22] : > > Yeah, 2.5 has some niceties I want to try too. The problem is that > > packages need more work: > > > > - [critical] write debian/copyright > > - test the -superclassic package > > - put the fbtrace stuff somewhere (different package? -*server > > packages? is it different when built for > > classic/super/superclassic?) > > > For rpm, I will wait RC1 > 2.5 is still a moving target
Yes but since it will be a separate package, not replacing 2.1 (or 2.0), I can afford the risk of uploading a Beta. Perhaps I shall go with the 'experimental' distribution first, just to make it clear this is not yet a production grade software. I'd like an early upload in order to get broader testing and provide some time for possible packaging bugs to be ironed out. > be aware of CORE-2601 Sounds interesting. I currently use a brute-force approach that doesn't rely on "make install" at all -- I pick wanted bits out of the compiled tree in gen/firebird. I'll try with the new configure options and see how it goes. > and for what I know classic and superclassic are built the same way > but not superserver > the only common binaries files added are fbguard and ib_udf.so Not ib_util.so and fbtrace? That'd be pitty. I wanted to put ib_util.so in a separate package (and install the sofile in /usr/lib) in order to help UDF authors. (which reminds me that I need to ping firebird-devel about CORE-2465) fbtrace also sounds like a candidate for a separate package if it can work with all server flavours. -- dam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
