Re: (A) native Windows port - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hannu Krosing
Subject Re: (A) native Windows port
Date
Msg-id 1026229318.7042.1.camel@taru.tm.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: (A) native Windows port  (Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 13:48, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 01:30, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> > > Oh, that is a problem.  We would have to require the old executables.
> > 
> > Could this be solved with packaging? Meaning can postmasters from old versions 
> > be packed with a new release strictly for the purpose of upgrading?  It is my 
> > understanding that the only old executable needed is the postmaster is that 
> > correct?  Perhaps this also requires adding functionality so that pg_dump can 
> > run against a singer user postmaster.
> > 
> > Example: When PG 7.3 is released, the RPM / deb / setup.exe include the 
> > postmaster binary for v 7.2 (perhaps two or three older versions...). 
> 
> That isn't usable for Debian.  A package must be buildable from source;
> so I would have to include separate (though possibly cut-down) source
> for n previous packages.  It's a horrid prospect and a dreadful kludge
> of a solution - a maintainer's nightmare.

The old postmaster should not be built/distributed. As it is for
_upgrading_ only, you just have to _keep_ it when doing an upgrade, not
build a new "old" one ;)

--------------
Hannu





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Lamar Owen
Date:
Subject: Re: (A) native Windows port
Next
From: "Iavor Raytchev"
Date:
Subject: bugzilla.pgaccess.org