Re: Ready for beta yet? - Mailing list pgadmin-hackers
From | Dave Page |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Ready for beta yet? |
Date | |
Msg-id | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4CC31E8@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Ready for beta yet? ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
List | pgadmin-hackers |
Thanks Raphaël, Tomasz. Patch applied. Regards Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: blacknoz@club-internet.fr [mailto:blacknoz@club-internet.fr] > Sent: 05 October 2005 17:46 > To: Dave Page > Cc: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org; bogomips@post.pl > Subject: Re: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet? > > Dave, > > can you apply the following patch to the trunk ? > This is the patch from Tomasz with blind corrections from my part. > (not tested but should be ok, I'll use it to provide 1.4.0 > beta1 package) > > Cheers, > Raphaël > > > ----Message d'origine---- > >De: blacknoz@club-internet.fr > >A: bogomips@post.pl > >Copie à: dpage@vale-housing.co.uk, pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > >Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet? > >Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:46:10 +0200 > > > > > >Hi Tomasz, > > > >----Message d'origine---- > >>Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet? > >>De: Tomasz Rybak <bogomips@post.pl> > >>A: blacknoz@club-internet.fr > >>Copie à: dpage@vale-housing.co.uk, pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org > >>Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:24:33 +0200 > >> > >>Dnia 03-10-2005, pon o godzinie 18:50 +0200, > blacknoz@club-internet.fr > >>napisa³(a): > >>> Hi Tomasz, Dave and friends, > >>> > >>> first day to my new job and first day with an access to > >>> the net since a long time. > >> > >>Good luck with new job. > > > >thanks, I'll try to keep the luck with me. :) > > > > > >>> Tomasz, if you have some time to produce a merge between > >>> what you provided and what I've fixed in official debian I'd > >>> appreciate your help now I particularly think to the pgagent part > >>> of the package which was not taken in consideration in 1.2.2 and > >>> also the i18n relocation. > >>> > >> > >>OK. > >>Here are changes I made, applied to revision 4490. > >>They are mostly changes made by you in official Debian package, > >>but I made few additional. > > > >I had a quick look to your changes and it seems quite good, > >although we must change some of them. Comments follow. > > > > > >>For changelog, I put 1.4.0, because as I understand, we're trying > >>to be ready for 1.4 release; I also put you name, as author of these > >>changes. Feel free to put mine, if it's more appropriate. > > > >1.4.0 is ok but the package version should not be "-1". "-1" is > >reserved for the first upload to official Debian. Unofficial packages > >should never use version number greater or equal to 1. > >For unofficial releases I generally use something like -0.1, -0.2,... > >Take a look to the beginning of the changelog you will see what we > >did with Andreas Tille before the first upload to Debian. > That's a good > >example (at least a functionnal one). > >Concerning my name as the author, you should definitely put yours > >(I'll correct this when providing a version for the svn > [surely tomorrow]) > >That's your work and the least we can do is that you get your name > >somewhere to thank you for your contribution. > > > >>In rules, line 16, instead of > >>_pgsql_inc:="/usr/include/postgresql -I./include" > >>I put calling of pg_config; such behaviour was mentioned > >>in changelog for libpq-dev 8.0.3-13 as more proper now. > > > >yeah, alright with this. In fact that's what I ripped from Ubuntu > >for official 1.2.2. So, this one is definitely ok. > > > >>I also created new variable CPPFLAGS, where I put -I./include > >>taken from _pgsql_inc. > >>Previous situation resulted in warnings from configure script, > >>because instead of putting -I into _pgsql_inc, it was passed > >>to script as parameter, which wasn't sure what to do with that. > >>pgAdmin was being built successfully, but I decided to get > >>rid of this warning. > >>I also had to change a bit calling configure script in line 50, > >>and add CPPFLAGS to it. > > > >Ok, I'll take a look at this. Maybe we can definitely remove that > >old -I./include after all... > > > > > >>I also changed directory from ui to i18n line 106 of file rules. > > > >Perfect. > > > >>Last change I made is adding pgagent and i18n files in > pgadmin3.install. > > > >Ok. We'll need a man page for pgagent in a near future if we > >want to upload the things as is for Official Debian. > >I don't know if anybody has began to work on this... Dave ? > > > >>Changelog in attachment. > > > >thanks for this diff. > > > >>One remark. > >>Why there are slony3 and slony3-data package? > >>Both depend on each other, and from my point of view there > >>is no need for them both; maybe it's good idea to merge them. > >>However, I'm not experienced in Debian packages creating, > >>and I don't know why split occurred, so I'll leave these two > >>as they are, without changes. So it's up to you to decide what > >>to do. > > > >I bet you refer to pgadmin3 and pgadmin3-data depending on each > >other. This was first introduced by Andreas Tille and discussed later > >with Peter Eisentraut and Noèl Koethe. > >In pgadmin3 package case, the reason for such a split is mainly due > >to the size of the documentation we provide. > >In this pgadmin3-data package we try to put all the nonarch dependent > >files and actually the PostgreSQL documentation. As it takes quite > >some disk space it's useful to split this for the following reason: > >- one non-arch package used by all the Debian archs prevents > >duplication of files and so save space on the Debian archive > >- as it saves disk space it also saves bandwidth between mirrors > >You may say that this not really interesting to do so for a > compressed > >size of approx 1,5 Mo but if you multiply this by a large number of > >package it may be worth doing it. > >Last but not least, as pgadmin3-data contains documentation it should > >be named -doc and not -data, however, this documentation is usefull > >and/or needed for pgadmin3 to run well so it's not pure documentation > >and is mandatory to install. That's why we named it -data > and not -doc > >and made the two packages depend exactly on each other. > >That's why it's like this and I won't change it. :) > > > >Thanks for your work, I'll provide an update tomorrow and ask Dave > >or Andreas (the Pflug one) to commit it. > > > >Regards, > >Raphaël > > > > > >---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > >TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > >
pgadmin-hackers by date: