Thread: Postgres 15.2 packages missing
Hello, We noticed today that the apt repo [1] seems to have packages for 15.0, 15.1, and 15.3, but is missing packages for 15.2. Given the older versions are still present, we assume there isn't a policy to yank point releases once the newest point release comes out, but if so, please let us know. It's also possible we're missing something even more obvious...please let us know on that also. But assuming this isn't our mistake: is there a reason the 15.2 packages appear to have been yanked? Thanks, James Coleman 1: http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/pool/main/p/postgresql-15/
Re: James Coleman > Given the older versions are still present, we assume there isn't a > policy to yank point releases once the newest point release comes out, > but if so, please let us know. Hi, we actually keep only one version in the repository. The 15.0 and 15.1 packages seem to be mistakenly kept around by reprepro, I'll have to investigate that. The packages you are looking for are available in the archive: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt/FAQ#Where_are_older_versions_of_the_packages.3F Christoph
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:53 AM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > > Re: James Coleman > > Given the older versions are still present, we assume there isn't a > > policy to yank point releases once the newest point release comes out, > > but if so, please let us know. > > Hi, > > we actually keep only one version in the repository. The 15.0 and 15.1 > packages seem to be mistakenly kept around by reprepro, I'll have to > investigate that. > > The packages you are looking for are available in the archive: > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt/FAQ#Where_are_older_versions_of_the_packages.3F Thanks. I had a vague memory of something like that, but then when I saw the 15.0 and 15.1 packages I assumed I'd remembered incorrectly. What's the reasoning for maintaining only the newest point release in the repo? Thanks, James
Re: James Coleman > Thanks. I had a vague memory of something like that, but then when I > saw the 15.0 and 15.1 packages I assumed I'd remembered incorrectly. > > What's the reasoning for maintaining only the newest point release in the repo? Mostly that reprepro that doesn't support it, unfortunately. It's still the best repo managing software around. We might have a look at "aptly", but its command line interface is somewhat weird and possibly not an improvement. Thanks for spotting the inconsistency, I managed to clean up the debris in there. The extra packages in there were mostly from old packages built while the distribution in question was still in development itself, so this wasn't even usable as a general wayback machine. apt-archive.postgresql.org is automatically kept up to date and receives all packages with a delay of one day. Christoph
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:14 AM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > > Re: James Coleman > > Thanks. I had a vague memory of something like that, but then when I > > saw the 15.0 and 15.1 packages I assumed I'd remembered incorrectly. > > > > What's the reasoning for maintaining only the newest point release in the repo? > > Mostly that reprepro that doesn't support it, unfortunately. It's > still the best repo managing software around. We might have a look at > "aptly", but its command line interface is somewhat weird and possibly > not an improvement. > > Thanks for spotting the inconsistency, I managed to clean up the > debris in there. The extra packages in there were mostly from old > packages built while the distribution in question was still in > development itself, so this wasn't even usable as a general wayback > machine. > > apt-archive.postgresql.org is automatically kept up to date and > receives all packages with a delay of one day. Ah, that helps. Thanks for maintaining the repo. I'm probably misunderstanding something here still, but is reprepro _not_ used to manage the archive repo such that we don't have that problem there? Thanks, James
Re: James Coleman > I'm probably misunderstanding something here still, but is reprepro > _not_ used to manage the archive repo such that we don't have that > problem there? No, that's a home-grown solution that uploads files to S3, records the metadata in a PG database, and generates+uploads the repository index files each time something changes. Since the archive is append-only that use-case is much more simple, just with the added complexity that the .deb files aren't available locally (since we ran out of disk space there). https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgapt.git;a=blob_plain;f=repo/bin/generate-archive-lists;hb=HEAD (not claiming a prettiness prize for that :D) Christoph