Thread: docbook-xsl version for release builds

I would like to start using a newer version of docbook-xsl for the
release builds.  This is currently used for building the man pages.  The
latest release is 1.78.1 and fixes a few formatting errors.

How do we do that?

We could just take the latest Debian package and stick it on borka.  I
don't have a problem with this also targeting maintenance releases, but
maybe there are other ideas.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> I would like to start using a newer version of docbook-xsl for the
> release builds.  This is currently used for building the man pages.  The
> latest release is 1.78.1 and fixes a few formatting errors.
>
> How do we do that?
>
> We could just take the latest Debian package and stick it on borka.  I
> don't have a problem with this also targeting maintenance releases, but
> maybe there are other ideas.

If it's safe to switch on the old ones as well, it sounds doable. If
we need different toolchains, that's going to be a serious pain. Have
you verified that it's fine with the old ones as well, or are you jsut
assuming?

Second, when you say "the latest debian package", you mean grab the
one from sid? I didn't see anything in backports, but maybe I'm
missing something?

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

On 7/11/13 5:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> If it's safe to switch on the old ones as well, it sounds doable. If
> we need different toolchains, that's going to be a serious pain. Have
> you verified that it's fine with the old ones as well, or are you jsut
> assuming?

I tested it and it's fine.

> Second, when you say "the latest debian package", you mean grab the
> one from sid? I didn't see anything in backports, but maybe I'm
> missing something?

Yes, take the sid package.  There likely won't be a backport because
it's just plain text files in the package.

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 7/11/13 5:55 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> If it's safe to switch on the old ones as well, it sounds doable. If
>> we need different toolchains, that's going to be a serious pain. Have
>> you verified that it's fine with the old ones as well, or are you jsut
>> assuming?
>
> I tested it and it's fine.
>
>> Second, when you say "the latest debian package", you mean grab the
>> one from sid? I didn't see anything in backports, but maybe I'm
>> missing something?
>
> Yes, take the sid package.  There likely won't be a backport because
> it's just plain text files in the package.

Ok. If it's just that then it shouldn't be a problem wrt updates
either - as in, there shouldn't be a security patch to this package
ever :)

Given that, I'm fine with just bumping the version on borka to that
version. Any objections?

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

On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Given that, I'm fine with just bumping the version on borka to that
> version. Any objections?

This was not done for 9.3rc1, AFAICT.  Let's please do it for the next
release builds.

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Given that, I'm fine with just bumping the version on borka to that
>> version. Any objections?

> This was not done for 9.3rc1, AFAICT.  Let's please do it for the next
> release builds.

Um ... touching borka's toolchain post-rc1 sure sounds like a recipe
for making ourselves look like idiots in a high-profile release.
Wouldn't it be better to wait till after 9.3.0?
        regards, tom lane

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Given that, I'm fine with just bumping the version on borka to that
>>> version. Any objections?
>
>> This was not done for 9.3rc1, AFAICT.  Let's please do it for the next
>> release builds.
>
> Um ... touching borka's toolchain post-rc1 sure sounds like a recipe
> for making ourselves look like idiots in a high-profile release.
> Wouldn't it be better to wait till after 9.3.0?

I agree that doing it after the RC is a bad idea. We should probably
try to do it more or less directly after the release though, so we
(I..) don't forget it again...

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

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> >> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> Given that, I'm fine with just bumping the version on borka to that
> >>> version. Any objections?
> >
> >> This was not done for 9.3rc1, AFAICT.  Let's please do it for the next
> >> release builds.
> >
> > Um ... touching borka's toolchain post-rc1 sure sounds like a recipe
> > for making ourselves look like idiots in a high-profile release.
> > Wouldn't it be better to wait till after 9.3.0?
> 
> I agree that doing it after the RC is a bad idea. We should probably
> try to do it more or less directly after the release though, so we
> (I..) don't forget it again...

Did we get around to doing this?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> >> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >>> Given that, I'm fine with just bumping the version on borka to that
>> >>> version. Any objections?
>> >
>> >> This was not done for 9.3rc1, AFAICT.  Let's please do it for the next
>> >> release builds.
>> >
>> > Um ... touching borka's toolchain post-rc1 sure sounds like a recipe
>> > for making ourselves look like idiots in a high-profile release.
>> > Wouldn't it be better to wait till after 9.3.0?
>>
>> I agree that doing it after the RC is a bad idea. We should probably
>> try to do it more or less directly after the release though, so we
>> (I..) don't forget it again...
>
> Did we get around to doing this?

Nope.

Given my schedule between now and the release wrap, I won't have a
chance to do it if I want any reasonable ability to roll it back if it
fails. But if you want to ahead and get it done, go ahead :)

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

On 10/3/13, 7:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Did we get around to doing this?
> Nope.
> 
> Given my schedule between now and the release wrap, I won't have a
> chance to do it if I want any reasonable ability to roll it back if it
> fails. But if you want to ahead and get it done, go ahead :)

Next try?

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> This will somehow show up in the snapshot builds, correct? So we (you? :P)
> can verify after the next snapshots that it's correct?

I thought the devel docs at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/
were built on that machine?
        regards, tom lane

On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 16:32 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Thanks for the reminder - done (installed the DEB from sid, version
> 1.78.1).

> This will somehow show up in the snapshot builds, correct? So we
> (you? :P) can verify after the next snapshots that it's correct?
> 
After in-depth inspection, please roll back to the previous 1.76.1
package.  While the whitespace fixes I was looking for indeed appeared,
I found two more severe formatting bugs that should be fixed before we
move ahead.

https://sourceforge.net/p/docbook/bugs/1321/
https://sourceforge.net/p/docbook/bugs/1322/