Re: Need comments about -jdbc packaging

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
>>
>>
>>
>