Thread: 1.2.0 status vs wx2.6 instead of wx2.5 ?
Hi friends, wx2.5 is about to be removed from Debian official archive due to bugs. It will leave pgadmin3 package in a broken state and which would lead to a removal of it too. A transition is on the way, Ron explained to me that he would surely upload rapidly for wx2.6. I'd like to know if 1.2.0 would compile or not and/or if it would be hard to get it build on top of wx2.6 instead of 2.5... If not, what is the roadmap, if there is one, to a next stable release of pga3 based on top of wx2.6 ? All of these questions to help me to take the good decision concerning pgAdmin III in official Debian. Regards, Raphaël
blacknoz@club-internet.fr wrote: > wx2.5 is about to be removed from Debian official archive due > to bugs. It will leave pgadmin3 package in a broken state and > which would lead to a removal of it too. A transition is on > the way, Ron explained to me that he would surely upload > rapidly for wx2.6. I'd like to know if 1.2.0 would compile or > not and/or if it would be hard to get it build on top of > wx2.6 instead of 2.5... > If not, what is the roadmap, if there is one, to a next stable > release of pga3 based on top of wx2.6 ? > > All of these questions to help me to take the good decision > concerning pgAdmin III in official Debian. Hi Couldn't you link pgadmin3 statically against wx2.5? The current debian-packages work well (at least for me), and who knows what bugs (be it pgadmin3-bugs or wx-bugs) are revealed by switching wx versions... greetings, Florian Pflug
Florian G. Pflug wrote: > blacknoz@club-internet.fr wrote: > >>wx2.5 is about to be removed from Debian official archive due >>to bugs. It will leave pgadmin3 package in a broken state and >>which would lead to a removal of it too. A transition is on >>the way, Ron explained to me that he would surely upload >>rapidly for wx2.6. I'd like to know if 1.2.0 would compile or >>not and/or if it would be hard to get it build on top of >>wx2.6 instead of 2.5... >>If not, what is the roadmap, if there is one, to a next stable >>release of pga3 based on top of wx2.6 ? >> >>All of these questions to help me to take the good decision >>concerning pgAdmin III in official Debian. > > Hi Hi Florian, > Couldn't you link pgadmin3 statically against wx2.5? IMHO, that's definitely not the good solution. This was done sometime ago as a workaround to make pga3 (1.0.2) enter Debian but in the same time we went to the conclusion that this was not suitable for a release in Sarge. Static linking is ok if we absolutely want pga3 to be in official Debian for some good or bad reason. The fact is that: a) I won't try to make pga3 enter Sarge with the static link workaround as it may be source of problem(s) (security updates, problems due to wx,...). BTW, I'm quite sure this is too late for Sarge, so let's forget about it. b) static linking was really mandatory in the past because of patches which were not included in the main branch of wx, this is not the case anymore c) we are all slightly moving to wx2.6 which seems to be the real good solution and I'd like to concentrate efforts in this direction > The current debian-packages work well (at least > for me), and who knows what bugs (be it pgadmin3-bugs > or wx-bugs) are revealed by switching wx versions... (nice to know they work well:-)) Effectively we don't know the bugs which could occur by switching to wx2.6, however we are aware of those due to current wx2.5: - wx2.5 as is does not build on PPC (can't find anymore that bug number...:( - I have at least one bug opened due to wx or something else wx underlies on (see bugs #278644 and maybe #278855 at bugs.debian.org) I really think we should wait until our preferred software is relying on wx2.6. @Andreas,Dave: I've just parsed the svn repository based on what Dave sent somedays ago and I saw that pga3 "1.2.2 compiles with wx2.6"... Any plan for a release? Florian, thank you for your suggestions. If you think to something else, I'm really opened to hearing from you. Regards, Raphaël
blacknoz@club-internet.fr wrote: > Hi friends, > > wx2.5 is about to be removed from Debian official archive due > to bugs. It will leave pgadmin3 package in a broken state and > which would lead to a removal of it too. A transition is on > the way, Ron explained to me that he would surely upload > rapidly for wx2.6. I'd like to know if 1.2.0 would compile or > not and/or if it would be hard to get it build on top of > wx2.6 instead of 2.5... > If not, what is the roadmap, if there is one, to a next stable > release of pga3 based on top of wx2.6 ? Some week ago I fixed cvs so 1.2.2 will compile with wx2.6. Seems we should release 1.2.2 quite soon. Regards, Andreas
Andreas Pflug wrote: > > Some week ago I fixed cvs so 1.2.2 will compile with wx2.6. Seems we > should release 1.2.2 quite soon. yes that would solve the main problem. Does the website reflects options needed to be passed to wxwid configure scripts or are there any new options I should inform Ron about ? Regards, Raphaël
Raphaël Enrici wrote: > Andreas Pflug wrote: > >>Some week ago I fixed cvs so 1.2.2 will compile with wx2.6. Seems we >>should release 1.2.2 quite soon. > > > yes that would solve the main problem. Does the website reflects options > needed to be passed to wxwid configure scripts or are there any new > options I should inform Ron about ? No, website is ok (ogl is for future 1.3/1.4 extensions) Regards, Andreas
Andreas Pflug wrote: >> wx2.5 is about to be removed from Debian official archive due >> to bugs. It will leave pgadmin3 package in a broken state and >> which would lead to a removal of it too. A transition is on >> the way, Ron explained to me that he would surely upload >> rapidly for wx2.6. I'd like to know if 1.2.0 would compile or >> not and/or if it would be hard to get it build on top of >> wx2.6 instead of 2.5... >> If not, what is the roadmap, if there is one, to a next stable >> release of pga3 based on top of wx2.6 ? > > Some week ago I fixed cvs so 1.2.2 will compile with wx2.6. Seems we > should release 1.2.2 quite soon. Would you be interested in releasing an osx version of 1.2.2 too? If so, I could quite easily backport the build-system changes, and the (very few) actual patches to 1.2. But if you don't want to add a new platform with a minor-version update, I'd safe myself the effort ;-) greetings, Florian Pflug
Florian G. Pflug wrote: > > Would you be interested in releasing an osx version of 1.2.2 too? > If so, I could quite easily backport the build-system changes, and the > (very few) actual patches to 1.2. > > But if you don't want to add a new platform with a minor-version update, > I'd safe myself the effort ;-) No problem, do it! Regards, Andreas