Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages - Mailing list pgsql-pkg-debian

From Christoph Berg
Subject Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
Date
Msg-id 20171002073842.yzp5i2xcihmj62co@msg.df7cb.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages  (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>)
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-pkg-debian
Re: Peter Geoghegan 2017-10-01 <CAH2-WznDdnsQ2=VzvrvkSKrLBOrJE9t-EciDUKdQpPsUq72yrQ@mail.gmail.com>
> > Could you fix that changelog entry, possibly adding a 0.3-2 or 0.4-1
> > stanza? If you use "dch" (dch -i) to edit the changelog, it will take
> > care of the timestamp.
> 
> I can take care of that. I'll also update the debian/copyright file,
> and include the omitted sql files in the Makefile. This will become
> 0.3-2.

Putting this 0.3-2 on top of master will only work if you also do the
"1.0" change in debian/source/format, or else dpkg will complain about
differences between the 0.3 tarball and the checkout. (That's why I
suggested 0.4.)

> I can push a temporary branch to Github, for your review. Does that
> work for you?

I can point Jenkins at branches/tags for building, no problem.

> > Also, if you want to build Debian packages from git repo's HEAD, it is
> > often easier to set debian/source/format to "1.0" which will disable
> > the "there are changes neither in the tarball nor in debian/patches"
> > check.
> 
> I thought that it would be useful to have version numbers that
> deliberately don't overlap with the Postgres contrib version numbers.
> Though now, maybe what I should do instead is rename the extension to
> something like amcheck-next. That would probably avoid confusion, and
> also allow me to use 1.0 as a version number. What do you think of
> that idea?

Does the extension sql file have any difference between the versions?
What I'm often seeing is that extension authors will increment the
extension version even for C-only changes.

If it's really the same extension, just a newer codebase, why not have
1.0 in PG10, and use 1.1 here. Renaming the extension somewhat implies
it would be co-installable with the original.

(On diffing the SQL files, I see that the difference is that "PARALLEL
RESTRICTED" got dropped, is that intended? It is not reflected in any
of the amcheck--*--*.sql files.)

Christoph


-- 
Sent via pgsql-pkg-debian mailing list (pgsql-pkg-debian@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-pkg-debian

pgsql-pkg-debian by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
Next
From: apt.postgresql.org repository
Date:
Subject: [pgsql-pkg-debian] pgsql-asn1oid updated to version 1.2-1.pgdg+1