Thread: BUG #13275: Version 9.3.6 is not available in Cross distribution packages

The following bug has been logged on the website:

Bug reference:      13275
Logged by:          Christian Almeida
Email address:      cbalmeida@gmail.com
PostgreSQL version: 9.3.5
Operating system:   Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
Description:

It is our policy always use "Cross distribution packages" to install
Postgres, due to several linux flavors we work with.

We need to upgrade some systems from 9.3.5 to 9.3.6, but it is not available
for download, only 9.4.1 is available and we do not plan to upgrade to 9.4.x
for next few months.

Is it possible for you guys to contact SCG people and ask them to make 9.3.6
available (instead the old 9.3.5)?

Best Regards.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:19:59PM +0000, cbalmeida@gmail.com wrote:
> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>
> Bug reference:      13275
> Logged by:          Christian Almeida
> Email address:      cbalmeida@gmail.com
> PostgreSQL version: 9.3.5
> Operating system:   Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
> Description:
>
> It is our policy always use "Cross distribution packages" to install
> Postgres, due to several linux flavors we work with.
>
> We need to upgrade some systems from 9.3.5 to 9.3.6, but it is not available
> for download, only 9.4.1 is available and we do not plan to upgrade to 9.4.x
> for next few months.
>
> Is it possible for you guys to contact SCG people and ask them to make 9.3.6
> available (instead the old 9.3.5)?

Interesting.  We link to BigSQL from our download page (though marked as
OpenSCG):

    http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/

The page does have 9.4.1 listed (but with the wrong year of '5-Feb-14',
should be 2015):

    http://community.openscg.com/se/postgresql/packages.jsp

and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the most
recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.

Did you contact BigSQL about their lack of a 9.3.X update?  Our only
control is to remove the link to their website if they are not providing
sufficiently-current updates, but I am not sure that is the case here.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:19:59PM +0000, cbalmeida@gmail.com wrote:
>> The following bug has been logged on the website:
>>
>> Bug reference:      13275
>> Logged by:          Christian Almeida
>> Email address:      cbalmeida@gmail.com
>> PostgreSQL version: 9.3.5
>> Operating system:   Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
>> Description:
>>
>> It is our policy always use "Cross distribution packages" to install
>> Postgres, due to several linux flavors we work with.
>>
>> We need to upgrade some systems from 9.3.5 to 9.3.6, but it is not available
>> for download, only 9.4.1 is available and we do not plan to upgrade to 9.4.x
>> for next few months.
>>
>> Is it possible for you guys to contact SCG people and ask them to make 9.3.6
>> available (instead the old 9.3.5)?
>
> Interesting.  We link to BigSQL from our download page (though marked as
> OpenSCG):
>
>         http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/
>
> The page does have 9.4.1 listed (but with the wrong year of '5-Feb-14',
> should be 2015):
>
>         http://community.openscg.com/se/postgresql/packages.jsp
>
> and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
> requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the most
> recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
> 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
> sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.

We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
which case, I'd push for all of them).

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
> > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
> > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the most
> > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
> > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
> > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
>
> We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
> coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
> on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
> which case, I'd push for all of them).

OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.  Do we want to require all
supported branches and check all existing links?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
> > > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
> > > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the
> most
> > > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
> > > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
> > > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
> >
> > We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
> > coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
> > on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
> > which case, I'd push for all of them).
>
> OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
> 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.  Do we want to require all
> supported branches and check all existing links?
>
>
We'll get 9.3.6 up ASAP. It must have just fallen through the cracks.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
>> > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
>> > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the most
>> > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
>> > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
>> > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
>>
>> We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
>> coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
>> on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
>> which case, I'd push for all of them).
>
> OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
> 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.

OK.

> Do we want to require all
> supported branches and check all existing links?

I don't think we've ever required all support branches to be
available, so it wouldn't be fair to ask for that now. I perhaps think
we should for future additions to the page though.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
> >> > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
> >> > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the
> most
> >> > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
> >> > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
> >> > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
> >>
> >> We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
> >> coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
> >> on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
> >> which case, I'd push for all of them).
> >
> > OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
> > 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.
>
> OK.
>
> > Do we want to require all
> > supported branches and check all existing links?
>
> I don't think we've ever required all support branches to be
> available, so it wouldn't be fair to ask for that now. I perhaps think
> we should for future additions to the page though.
>
>
I don't think we need to require all support branches. But we *should*
definitely require that any branch that *is* published must be kept up to
date with the latest minors.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:56:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
> > OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
> > 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.
>
> OK.
>
> > Do we want to require all
> > supported branches and check all existing links?
>
> I don't think we've ever required all support branches to be
> available, so it wouldn't be fair to ask for that now. I perhaps think
> we should for future additions to the page though.

Uh, requiring new people to do more than existing people doesn't seem
fair either.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
>> > > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
>> > > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the
>> > > most
>> > > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
>> > > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is that
>> > > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
>> >
>> > We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
>> > coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
>> > on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
>> > which case, I'd push for all of them).
>>
>> OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
>> 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.  Do we want to require all
>> supported branches and check all existing links?
>>
>
> We'll get 9.3.6 up ASAP. It must have just fallen through the cracks.
>

Thanks Jim. Can you check that whoever your representative on the
-packagers list is is the most appropriate person please? That's one
way it might have been missed I guess.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>     > Do we want to require all
>     > supported branches and check all existing links?
>
>     I don't think we've ever required all support branches to be
>     available, so it wouldn't be fair to ask for that now. I perhaps think
>     we should for future additions to the page though.
>
>
>
> I don't think we need to require all support branches. But we *should*
> definitely require that any branch that *is* published must be kept up to date
> with the latest minors.

Right, that means updating 9.3.X or remove it from the website;  seems
they are now doing the former.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:56:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
>> > OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
>> > 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> > Do we want to require all
>> > supported branches and check all existing links?
>>
>> I don't think we've ever required all support branches to be
>> available, so it wouldn't be fair to ask for that now. I perhaps think
>> we should for future additions to the page though.
>
> Uh, requiring new people to do more than existing people doesn't seem
> fair either.

True, but we can figure out that if it comes up.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
> >> > > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
> >> > > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the
> >> > > most
> >> > > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
> >> > > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is
> that
> >> > > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
> >> >
> >> > We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
> >> > coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
> >> > on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
> >> > which case, I'd push for all of them).
> >>
> >> OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
> >> 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.  Do we want to require all
> >> supported branches and check all existing links?
> >>
> >
> > We'll get 9.3.6 up ASAP. It must have just fallen through the cracks.
> >
>
> Thanks Jim. Can you check that whoever your representative on the
> -packagers list is is the most appropriate person please? That's one
> way it might have been missed I guess.
>
>
9.3.6 is now up

Thank you guys! You're the best!

Christian B. Almeida


2015-05-12 16:44 GMT-03:00 Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76@gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0300, Dave Page wrote:
>> >> > > and you are right they didn't upgrade 9.3.X.  I am not sure what
>> >> > > requirement we have for packagers listed on our website to have the
>> >> > > most
>> >> > > recent versions of _all_ major releases.   If they just didn't list
>> >> > > 9.3.X anymore and had the most recent major release available, is
>> that
>> >> > > sufficient?  Does someone know?  I am CC'ing two of our web people.
>> >> >
>> >> > We certainly expect anything that they list to be up to date, and
>> >> > coordinated with the official release. I don't think we have a policy
>> >> > on which branches should be supported though (perhaps we should - in
>> >> > which case, I'd push for all of them).
>> >>
>> >> OK, should someone contact BigSQL and ask them to either remove the
>> >> 9.3.X release or update it?  I can do that.  Do we want to require all
>> >> supported branches and check all existing links?
>> >>
>> >
>> > We'll get 9.3.6 up ASAP. It must have just fallen through the cracks.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks Jim. Can you check that whoever your representative on the
>> -packagers list is is the most appropriate person please? That's one
>> way it might have been missed I guess.
>>
>>
> 9.3.6 is now up
>
>