Re: RFS: libpgjava
On 27/07/12 08:15, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2012-07-27 02:13, Andrew Ross wrote:
>> On 26/07/12 06:20, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> Hi Niels,
>> I think it's at least worth fixing bug #659324 which is fixed by
>> adding in transitional package libpg-java, since this fixes the
>> upgrade path for this package. If you prefer I could prepare an
>> upload that only contains that change.
> Certainly, the transition package should not pose a problem (other
> than it has to go through new?).
>> Annoyingly since the last release upstream have moved from SVN to
>> git and removed all the svn tags from their headers, so the change
>> affects the comments in every file. However the changes from  of
>> any real consequence are:  which fixes upstream bug 6293 with
>> the following comment:
>> This solves a major performance problem for ResultSetMetaData
>> users which did not cache the ResultSetMetaData object. One of the
>> users is the driver's own implementation of updatable ResultSets,
>> so this can't be worked around solely in end user code.
>> and:  which corrects a signed/unsigned issue
> Will the reverse dependencies handle these changes correctly?
> Technically  is an API/ABI changes for libraries extending the
> AbstractJdbc2ResultSet class (but if nothing extends it directly, it
> won't be a problem I guess).
> Regarding , do clients/rdeps handle negative values correctly (or
> are they not exposeed to it)?
> (For reference, dak finds the following reverse dependencies
> Checking reverse dependencies...
> # Broken Depends:
> netbeans: libnb-ide14-java
> openjpa: libopenjpa-java
> osmosis: osmosis
> postgis: libpostgis-java
> # Broken Build-Depends:
> jython: libpostgresql-jdbc-java
> netbeans: libpostgresql-jdbc-java
> openjpa: libpostgresql-jdbc-java
> osmosis: libpostgresql-jdbc-java
> postgis: libpg-java
>> They look fairly safe to me, but I'm happy to go with an update to
>> the current upstream version if you think that's better.
>> Thanks, Andy
>>  https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/commits/REL9_1_902 
> I am fairly certain a transitional package will be accepted, so I am
> okay with just that. For the others, I would like the release team to
> pre-approve it before the upload. (i.e. create a full debdiff and
> send it as an attachment to a new "unblock" bug against
OK, I've updated the SVN repository so that we only add in the
transitional package for now. If someone is able to check it and sponsor
the upload then I'll file an unblock bug against release.debian.org.