Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WznDdnsQ2=VzvrvkSKrLBOrJE9t-EciDUKdQpPsUq72yrQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] amcheck packages
|
Список | pgsql-pkg-debian |
Hi Christoph, On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > I've configured the build jobs in our jenkins and gave it a go. The > build almost worked, the only problem is that the topmost changelog > entry in debian/changelog has a malformed timestamp which dpkg is > complaining about. On Ubuntu zesty, that problem is even fatal. For > the other dists, everything worked including the testsuite. Cool. > 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. I can push a temporary branch to Github, for your review. Does that work for you? > 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? Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan -- 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: