From: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | John Harvey <john(dot)harvey(at)crunchydata(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-pkg-yum <pgsql-pkg-yum(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Need comments about -jdbc packaging |
Date: | 2016-02-17 07:23:59 |
Message-ID: | 1455693839.7610.12.camel@gunduz.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-pkg-yum |
Hi,
On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 07:43 -0500, John Harvey wrote:
<snip>
> In short, it says that the team does not want to use postgresql's version
> number in the artifacts. This would explain why the current releases of
> pgjdbc are not prefixed with 9.5, and are still at 9.4. It is my guess
> that the numbering of pgjdbc will stay on 9.4 for some time. But, I think
> this is sufficient evidence that having a hard dependency on a postgres
> major version is something that is not needed. So, I think I agree with
> your assessment. If you wanted a second opinion, Dave Cramer might be the
> best person to comment.
Ok, I removed all the version dependent macros from spec file. Thanks for the
comment.
> Additionally, I can verify that the if-block's make sense in the combined
> spec-file. I tried one of your pre-release specfiles on EL6 and had issues
> with "add_maven_depmap", "%files -f .mfiles", and the 2 "_javadir" files.
> I think the if-blocks are clean, and I approve your new changes with regard
> to making a combined specfile.
Thanks for confirming this.
I pushed packages for 9.1+ on EL 6 - 7 and Fedora 22-23.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2016-02-17 07:24:39 | Re: Found an issue in pgjdbc |
Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2016-02-17 07:22:32 | Re: Need comments about -jdbc packaging |