Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
От | Christoph Berg |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20171002073842.yzp5i2xcihmj62co@msg.df7cb.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages |
Список | pgsql-pkg-debian |
Re: Peter Geoghegan 2017-10-01 <CAH2-WznDdnsQ2=VzvrvkSKrLBOrJE9t-EciDUKdQpPsUq72yrQ@mail.gmail.com> > > Could you fix that changelog entry, possibly adding a 0.3-2 or 0.4-1 > > stanza? If you use "dch" (dch -i) to edit the changelog, it will take > > care of the timestamp. > > I can take care of that. I'll also update the debian/copyright file, > and include the omitted sql files in the Makefile. This will become > 0.3-2. Putting this 0.3-2 on top of master will only work if you also do the "1.0" change in debian/source/format, or else dpkg will complain about differences between the 0.3 tarball and the checkout. (That's why I suggested 0.4.) > I can push a temporary branch to Github, for your review. Does that > work for you? I can point Jenkins at branches/tags for building, no problem. > > Also, if you want to build Debian packages from git repo's HEAD, it is > > often easier to set debian/source/format to "1.0" which will disable > > the "there are changes neither in the tarball nor in debian/patches" > > check. > > I thought that it would be useful to have version numbers that > deliberately don't overlap with the Postgres contrib version numbers. > Though now, maybe what I should do instead is rename the extension to > something like amcheck-next. That would probably avoid confusion, and > also allow me to use 1.0 as a version number. What do you think of > that idea? Does the extension sql file have any difference between the versions? What I'm often seeing is that extension authors will increment the extension version even for C-only changes. If it's really the same extension, just a newer codebase, why not have 1.0 in PG10, and use 1.1 here. Renaming the extension somewhat implies it would be co-installable with the original. (On diffing the SQL files, I see that the difference is that "PARALLEL RESTRICTED" got dropped, is that intended? It is not reflected in any of the amcheck--*--*.sql files.) Christoph -- Sent via pgsql-pkg-debian mailing list (pgsql-pkg-debian@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-pkg-debian
В списке pgsql-pkg-debian по дате отправления: