* Francesco Paolo Lovergine (frankie@debian.org) wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 10:20:56PM +0200, Giuseppe Sacco wrote: > > I had a look at your postgis package. I think it is very very simple and > > have all is required. The only problem I found is related to the upgrade > > from the actual postgis: it is very difficult because of some > > conflicting files. I would probably just "conflicts" with these > > versions. > > I know that some testing users would complain, but we have to concern of > sarge -> etch upgrading only. Postgis is not in either sarge or etch. > So I see no real problem. It doesn't really hurt to Conflict: with the prior package naming scheme. I also reviewed the packaging and was reasonably pleased with it. A couple comments I did have though: is 'libjava' the appropriate naming scheme for the java portions? I'm not familiar with the Java policy, personally, but I expect it has something on this. Also, the diff seemed to contain some perhaps unnecessary changes in it (rebuilding documentation with a later version of docbook, mainly, I'm not a big fan of seeing the config.sub/config.guess changes in a diff but if they're necessary then I can understand it). I'm also still not convinced that it makes any sense at all to try and build for multiple PostgreSQL versions at once. Certainly, the way you're doing it is much better than it had been done, but I don't see any justification for it to begin with... You should probably also look into the pre/post dump/restore scripts provided by the main Postgres package (which I worked through getting defined and integrated into the package with the Postgres maintainer, Martin Pitt) for handling Postgres upgrades with a PostGIS-enabled database. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature