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

Re: [DebianGIS] [Fwd: Re: Hijack or remove postgis]



* alex bodnaru (alexbodn@012.net.il) wrote:
> the requirements from joerg of having a static control file, and your
> proposition to have only one postgis-utils have been full filled.

Right, you dealt with a couple of specific complaints while missing the
whole point that the packaging is overly complex and fragile.

> the whole list is in the debian changelog.

Is what is in the Debian-GIS CVS reposititory the most current?

> you have recently promissed to review thew package again, so please do
> it and be strait to the point in your criticism.

Once it's clear what the most recent package is I'll be happy to go
through it again.  I did go through it recently with Frankie and pointed
some things out to him but looks like I forgot to send my comments to
the list too.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

> Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * alex bodnaru (alexbodn@012.net.il) wrote:
> > 
> >>it would really be good on your side to check the package again, since
> >>it has fixed a lot of issues, part of them from you.
> > 
> > 
> > Is what's in the Debian-GIS CVS repo any different from what you're
> > proposing?  That's what I looked at most recently and I havn't seen
> > updates to it or anything suggesting there's a newer version than what's
> > in there.
> > 
> > 	Thanks,
> > 
> > 		Stephen
> > 
> > 
> >>Stephen Frost wrote:
> >>
> >>>* alex bodnaru (alexbodn@012.net.il) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>i wish to make a distinction between the postgis package currently in
> >>>>sid, which is currently candidate to be removed (and i personally agree
> >>>>on that), and the newer postgis package currently on debian-giswhich has
> >>>>all comments fixed, and it's about to be re-proposed on new.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Unless what's on Debian-GIS has changed recently, it's still got alot of
> >>>issues.  I suppose I can go through and point them all out (such as
> >>>including some of the scripts already in postgresql-common and having an
> >>>obscene number of binary packages for a simple Postgres module) but,
> >>>honestly, the packaging is just way more complex than it has any need to
> >>>be.  It tries to do way too much and ends up not being very good at
> >>>doing the basics and ends up being very fragile.
> >>>
> >>>	Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>		Stephe
> > 
> > n
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pkg-grass-general mailing list
> > Pkg-grass-general@lists.alioth.debian.org
> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-general

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: