Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] Re: We should not transition to apt.postgresql.org until we have a PPA

Re: Martin Pitt 2013-02-14 <20130214094217(dot)GH3042(at)piware(dot)de>
> Christoph Berg [2013-02-14 10:35 +0100]:
> > It's kind of an chicken-and-egg problem, if you download the repo
> > package, you still don't have any key to verify it.
>
> That's true. We might ship the key in postgresql-common itself then,
> and add a script to install the backports package? For existing stable
> releases we can point people to the install instructions.

Ooooh, that's a brilliant idea! (vs. a separate package)

It would even make the existing pgdg-keyring package redundant.

Re: Martin Pitt 2013-02-14 <20130214094416(dot)GI3042(at)piware(dot)de>
> Christoph Berg [2013-02-14 10:29 +0100]:
> > 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.
>
> Debian/Ubuntu backports potentially affect the whole system, so almost
> every user will only want to pick a package or two, not all of them.
> Also, the point of those "NotAutomatic" flag was that you can even add
> the apt source by default everywhere.
>
> Most PPAs, as well as apt.pg.org are "topic" repositories which IMHO you
> would usually enable because you want to use them.

Well I'd tend to say we have so many packages in there that we are
somewhere inbetween.

But with your "ship in postgresql-common" idea, we can have an
installer script that will take care of all steps and make the wiki
instructions very simple.

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