[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DebianGIS] PostGIS status for debian unstable


i'm glad this thread emmerged to the debian gis list. all of us seek
debian wealth, but part of us really need operable gis software, and are
 using mixed debian installation (sometimes complemented with upstream
code) in order to achieve it.

one of those wonderful upstream sources is postgis, which is being
supported for every postgresql since 7.2 (available and tested on
woody). they also do support the original postgis 0.9 for all servers. i
personnaly know of debian users of all those features.

as an aim to serve this community, i've made a debian package able to
build for any postgresql available on the builder's debian installation.
the package i've uploaded on debian gis does really build and work on
every debian since woody, with servers 7.2 and later, with either one or
multiple clusters installed.

the relatively complex way to build the package made it subject to
repetitive bounces from unstable, even though i've expressed my
intention to fix all issues.

this time i incline to think my package was bounced on grounds that
existed before, but have been set as critical, but the dd that
recommended the package rejection has done it comparing some features of
the above described package to a package he submitted to new, instead. i
will address the issues below:

Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Francesco Paolo Lovergine (frankie@debian.org) wrote:
>>On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:24:58PM +0100, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>>>  I've just realized that the postgis unstable package is terribly
>>>outdated and buggy. After re-packaging it for using with postgresql 
>>>8.1 on my machine, I discovered that inside the pkg-grass repository 
>>>the package is already in a good shape.
>>>Is there a reason why the package in unstable is so outdated?
>>There's a pending upload in NEW. Someone does not think it's in so
>>good shape :)  but it could be approved in a few...
> It's not in good shape, to say the least.  I've spoken with Alex about
> this in the past and am trying to encourage him to fix the problems with
> the new packaging.  At the very least:
>   * The PostGIS module name should be postgresql-X.Y-postgis where X.Y
>     corresponds to the PostgreSQL version.
>   * The utilities shipped with PostGIS are not dependent on the version
>     of PostgreSQL and therefore there should not be multiple binary
>     packages for the utilities.

both those issues are reasonably important, and i've already started
working on them.

>   * PostGIS should not be building packages for 8.0 or really for 7.4.
>     8.0 is being phased out of Debian/unstable and will be gone prior to
>     the etch release.  7.4 only remains so that a sane transistion can
>     be done from sarge.  PostGIS doesn't exist in sarge and so there's
>     no need for this.

during the long period between debian stable releases, postgresql
released 8.0, now superseeded by 8.1. postgis deb will automatically
build for the installed postgresql only. thus, the postgresql-8.0
postgis will be built only where postgresql-8.0 exists.

>   * PostGIS should not be including multiple different major versions of
>     the PostGIS source code and shouldn't be building old major versions
>     using the same source package.  This is essentially insane.  If we
>     need multiple major versions of PostGIS in Debian then they should
>     be built from different source packages (hint: We *don't* need, or
>     want multiple major versions of PostGIS in Debian especially since 
>     the it looks like the older version only works w/ 7.4 anyway)

i don't think the 0.9 issue is been correctly expressed here, but the
0.9 package is separated from 1.1 and is not an issue in this letter.

>   * The build system for PostGIS absolutely sucks and causes problems
>     for anyone else (build daemon or other) trying to rebuild it.  This
>     results in FTBFS bugs which are release-critical.  No package with
>     such issues should be uploaded to the archive.

could you please elaborate your explanation: what exactly does it suck,
and what are the current problems your are talking about?

> The PostGIS package was rejected (aiui) due to #2 and #3 above but I
> don't believe fixing just those would allow it to get through or would
> be in anyone's best interest.  I've packaged PostGIS myself using CDBS
> for 8.1 and it went quite decently and works pretty well.  I'm happy
> enough if Alex fixes the issues with the packaging though.

thanks for your infinite generosity.

> 	Thanks,
> 		Stephen


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-grass-general mailing list
> Pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general

Reply to: