Christoph Berg [2012-09-08 22:41 +0200]: > Re: Adam D. Barratt 2012-09-08 <[🔎] 1347135924.8753.72.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> > > Often this is achieved by ftp-master copying the packages "upwards" > > during the point release. My understanding is that this would be > > unwelcome in this case, as it would re-introduce a number of binary > > packages which have been dropped from the wheezy packages. > > Nod. (We should probably also add something about this to the release > notes.) Confirmed. It would also break, as the sole reason for having this crippled package in wheezy in the first place is that squeeze's postgresql-plperl-8.4 does not work in wheezy due to libperl5.12/5.14 not being installable in parallel. > > > As far as I can see, the easiest way to resolve this would therefore be > > a no-changes upload to unstable with a higher version number, which we > > could then allow to transition to testing. This could be a fake > > "8.4.14.really.8.4.12" style version, but this has the potential to > > break again in future. My suggestion would be to add an epoch, ensuring > > that the wheezy packages always have a higher version - I've assumed > > that the packages won't be seeing any further updates for jessie. Correct. postgresql-8.4 should be removed entirely as soon as wheezy gets released. > I think the proper solution would be to really update the wheezy > package with the 8.4.13 postgresql source. There might even be > relevant pl/perl changes that should go into wheezy. I'll check the > changelog for that. I did check the whole diff, and PL/Perl was not changed at all, which is why I didn't update the unstable version (I pointed that out in my mail to security@). I didn't consider the versioning problem though, sorry about that. I'll upload a new version. > I'd rather avoid adding an epoch version (or some other artificially > high version number) as that would break upgrades for people moving to > some other source for postgresql-8.4 packages (pgapt.debian.net, soon > to be moved to postgresql.org infrastructure). I agree. > Not sure how we can keep the versions properly sorted, short of always > also updating 8.4 in wheezy. We'll think about that. Martin? Hm, interesting case. As it has to be smaller than the backports versions but bigger than squeeze-security's, I don't see other options than keeping wheezy up to date with new upstream versions. Upstream support for 8.4 will cease in a year or so anyway, i. e. we are looking at doing three to five further updates to it. From my point of view that's bearable, if the release and security teams agree? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature