Hi Martin,
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Indeed it was quite clear to me right from the beginning that Lenny
> would ship with 8.3 only. I think from the POV of not supporting
> several PostgreSQL versions in stable Debian releases there is no
> disagreement. Etch is an exception because we needed 7.4 to get an
> upgrade path from Sarge, but further Debian versions will only ever
> support the latest PostgreSQL release.
Okay.
> I'm personally ok with that argument, but I'm not the backports.org
> maintainer. If they have a general policy that they don't *ever*
> upload something manual to backports.org, I suppose changing that
> policy just for PostgreSQL is hard to do.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility of offering a private
> archive. For example, I maintained 8.1 backports for Sarge on
> people.debian.org for quite a while, until backports.org got them.
Yeah, looks like that's what I will have to do, then.
> Not my favourite option, but if the postgresql maintenance team would
> actually double in size (IOW, would not just be me), and
> debian-{release,security}@ don't veto, it's ok with me.
Good to hear. I'll see what I can do. Or you can let me know how to help
out. (The learning curve for becoming a Debian Maintainer or Uploader is
rather steep, IMO).
> I still maintain 8.2 for Ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10, which I will have to do
> for the next 7 months still. But after that I can get that off my
> plate, and just maintain 8.1 and 8.3.
Aha, I'm going to compare those against my 8.2 backports, as there's
already a complaint about missing files in the -dev package.
> That would basically lift backports.org to be an officially supported
> Debian archive, which it isn't, and shouldn't be.
Well, there are exceptions to their rule. I think Postgres would make
another good exception. (CCing to backports because of this statement...)
> So, if the backports.org maintainers are ok with manual 8.2 uploads,
> and you are willing to maintain them, that works for me. In that case
> I'm happy to check your packages, and to discuss QA'ing procedures for
> uploads.
Cool.
> If that violates the backports.org policy, I'd rather ask them to
> remove the 8.2 backport altogether, since it just doesn't make sense
> any more and just bitrots.
They already have.
Regards
Markus Wanner
