Re: PostgreSQL upgrade from slink - proposed solution

["Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>]

Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union wrote:
  >I think the library changes don't prevent you from running the earlier
  >binaries, but building from source is probably a good idea anyway.
  >Otherwise you can end up with problems of the source for
  >postgresql-slink not being available.  (Presumably this doesn't create
  >the entire slink installation of postgresql, but just the binaries
  >necessary to dump the database available for postgresql's postinst to
  >put into /usr/lib/postgresql/dumpall/6.3.) Also, it's messy to have
  >binaries in potato that need to be created on a slink machine.
  
I think that this is right.  I shall have to make a cut-down 6.3 and build
in potato.

  >Why not have postresql-slink put its own binaries in
  >/usr/lib/postgresql/dumpall/6.3? Is there any 6.3 package out there
  >that presaved the old binaries properly before removing itself? Your
  >suggestion would appear to be fine, but I'm not sure I understand why
  >it's necessary.
  
6.3 relied on the new packages' preinsts saving the old binaries.  I could
introduce a save in the prerm of a new 6.3.2-16, but I suspect that most users
would not install it before they moved to potato.  Therefore, the solution
has to be contained in potato.


-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
               PGP key from public servers; key ID 32B8FAA1
                 ========================================
     "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we 
      are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not
      forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing
      about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that 
      the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our 
      body."        II Corinthians 4:8-10