Re: deprecating contrib for PGXN

On May 18, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure I buy into that idea, I need to think about it some
> more. The thing with debian for example is that the package building
> needs to be all automatic, and determistic — you're not granted to have
> the next version build a different set of binary packages.
>
> We're working about that very point with postgresql-X.Y-extension
> packages so that you can have a new binary package produced when you add
> support for a new major version, but we're not there yet. Having the
> set of binary packages change manually is ok, but debian also have the
> concept of binNMU which is an infrastructure forced rebuild if you wish
> (picture libc upgrades).
>
> So, given how the debian packaging actually works, having something
> automated that works from “distributions” which in PGXN can contain
> several extensions — I'm not seeing it. It looks a little like how
> things work in the Java world with jar and war packaging…

I think it must be my ignorance of Debian (and Java) packaging at work here, because I don't understand any of the above (except the par where you need to think about it some more, which is smart).

> FYI, I'm still working on apt.postgresql.org so that we have debian
> packaging for all major versions here, and all extensions for all those
> major versions too. It's not the first item on my TODO list, but we
> will get there eventually — this year I would figure, we even have a
> team forming.

That sounds awesome.

Best,

David