Re: Need comments about -jdbc packaging

One more comment.

The below block doesn't work for me on EL-7:

%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 6
# On RHEL 6, we depend on the apache-maven package that we provide via
# our repo. Build servers should not have any other apache-maven package
# from other repos, because they depend on java-1.7.0, which is not
supported by pgjdbc.
# Please note that we don't support RHEL 5 for this package.
BuildRequires: apache-maven
%else
# On the remaining distros, use the maven package supplied by OS.
BuildRequires: maven
%endif

error: Failed build dependencies:
maven

I think the BuildRequires: apache-maven line should apply to EL-6 and
EL-7. Otherwise, I do not know where to get this dependency for EL-7.

Regards,
-John

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:56 AM, John Harvey <john(dot)harvey(at)crunchydata(dot)com>
wrote:

> Hi Devrim,
>
> Doing a scan of the specfile, I found a few other opportunities:
>
> I am pretty sure that these lines can be removed:
> BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
> BuildRequires: ant
> BuildRequires: ant-junit
> BuildRequires: junit
> I am pretty sure that I am able to successfully build without any of these
> packages. I think these are legacy requirements from the ant days.
>
> The BuildRequires line for apache-maven should specify 3.0.0 or greater
> (2.x is a little different):
> apache-maven >= 3.0.0
>
> Apart from that, no other issues to report.
>
> Regards,
> -John
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:43 AM, John Harvey <john(dot)harvey(at)crunchydata(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Devrim,
>>
>> I'm not the expert here by any means; I only just got interested in this
>> project when moving from ant to maven became something new and fun to try
>> to put together. So, feel free to take my opinion for what it is-- just an
>> opinion.
>>
>> After some research, I found this thread awhile back which might contain
>> helpful information:
>> http://postgresql.nabble.com/Release-for-9-5-td5873644.html
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -John
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> While working on a unified -jdbc package, I noticed that we have
>>> PostgreSQL major number appended to package name, version, jar file,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Do we really need that? This package does not depend on PostgreSQL, so
>>> I think we can remove it.
>>>
>>> Attached is the spec file that I intend to push later tonight to git,
>>> so that we can ship this package along with tomorrow's releases.
>>>
>>> This package has some comment improvements and conditionals for unified
>>> spec file...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Devrim GÜNDÜZ
>>> Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>> PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
>>> Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>