On 05/18/2016 08:46 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > Christoph mentioned that issue when we met at FOSDEM, I've been > expecting this change since then. :-) This doesn't have a bugreport, either, AFAIK. > I have no issue with the renaming, it's consistent with the library > package. But it's not sufficient to make the packages co-installable. A > few of the files of the extension don't have the version in their name > causing conflicts. Do you already have a solution for this in mind? I simply don't plan for them to be co-installable, i.e. postgresql-9.5-postgis-2.2-scripts needs to conflict against postgresql-9.5-postgis-2.1-scripts [0]. Users still get the advantage of optionally being able to install the 2.1 variant, as long as we keep the old packages in the archive. Not an ideal solution, but better than what we have at the moment, I think. Kind Regards Markus [0]: Some more details: I think co-installability of multiple versions of an extension would need to be solved upstream. Currently, PostgreSQL looks for a single 'postgis.control' file when asked to 'CREATE EXTENSION postgis'. If upstream renamed to 'postgis2' (vs a future postgis3, for example) it would also get clear(er) that 2.2 is backwards compatible to 2.1 and could replace it even on live systems. However, I'm not entirely certain that's perfectly guaranteed and people are reluctant to upgrade 2.1 -> 2.2 on a live system, as it's perceived a major version upgrade.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature