Re: [DebianGIS] [Fwd: Re: Hijack or remove postgis]
yes, the one marked 1.1.0-7.
alex
Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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-genera
>
> l
Reply to: