Re: We should not transition to apt.postgresql.org until we have a PPA

Re: Martin Pitt 2013-02-14 <20130214055510(dot)GB3119(at)piware(dot)de>
> Tom Lane [2013-02-13 18:34 -0500]:
> > Uh ... why would we be "deprecating" Martin's packages at all?
>
> We currently have my backports PPA, Christophs pgapt.debian.net, and
> apt.postgresql.org. It seems to me that of all three,
> apt.postgresql.org is both the most complete (as it also has many
> extensions) and also safer in the sense that it only publishes
> packages after they passed the whole p-common test suite. While I run
> the latter for the development release uploads, I don't run them on
> all backports.

Fwiw, pgapt.debian.net is just an rsync copy of apt.postgresql.org
that I'll shutdown RSN, so it's really only two repos. (Martin and I
should probably send out a common announcement about the
deprecations.)

> The bit that I don't quite like, and I quickly discussed that with
> Christoph on FOSDEM, is the requirement of apt pinning. I'd much
> rather drop the "NotAutomatic: yes" and the explicit pinning, so that
> the repo will be used when you add it (as usually that's what you
> want, after all?) People who don't want all packages there can still
> configure pinning, but the current "all or nothing" instructions don't
> do that anyway.

I see the point. The behavior is in line with backport.debian.org's
"principle of least surprise", i.e. you will only get upgraded to
these packages if you explicitely ask for it. For Ubuntu PPA users the
expectation might be the other way round ("I configured the repo, so
please take over my system") - I'm not sure which way is the better
one to default to.

Christoph
--
cb(at)df7cb(dot)de | http://www.df7cb.de/