Re: Ready for beta yet?

Dave,

can you apply the following patch to the trunk ?
This is the patch from Tomasz with blind corrections from my part.
(not tested but should be ok, I'll use it to provide 1.4.0 beta1 package)

Cheers,
Raphaël

----Message d'origine----
>De: blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr
>A: bogomips(at)post(dot)pl
>Copie à: dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet?
>Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 22:46:10 +0200
>
>
>Hi Tomasz,
>
>----Message d'origine----
>>Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready for beta yet?
>>De: Tomasz Rybak <bogomips(at)post(dot)pl>
>>A: blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr
>>Copie à: dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:24:33 +0200
>>
>>Dnia 03-10-2005, pon o godzinie 18:50 +0200, blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr
>>napisa³(a):
>>> Hi Tomasz, Dave and friends,
>>>
>>> first day to my new job and first day with an access to
>>> the net since a long time.
>>
>>Good luck with new job.
>
>thanks, I'll try to keep the luck with me. :)
>
>
>>> Tomasz, if you have some time to produce a merge between
>>> what you provided and what I've fixed in official debian I'd
>>> appreciate your help now I particularly think to the pgagent part
>>> of the package which was not taken in consideration in 1.2.2 and
>>> also the i18n relocation.
>>>
>>
>>OK.
>>Here are changes I made, applied to revision 4490.
>>They are mostly changes made by you in official Debian package,
>>but I made few additional.
>
>I had a quick look to your changes and it seems quite good,
>although we must change some of them. Comments follow.
>
>
>>For changelog, I put 1.4.0, because as I understand, we're trying
>>to be ready for 1.4 release; I also put you name, as author of these
>>changes. Feel free to put mine, if it's more appropriate.
>
>1.4.0 is ok but the package version should not be "-1". "-1" is
>reserved for the first upload to official Debian. Unofficial packages
>should never use version number greater or equal to 1.
>For unofficial releases I generally use something like -0.1, -0.2,...
>Take a look to the beginning of the changelog you will see what we
>did with Andreas Tille before the first upload to Debian. That's a good
>example (at least a functionnal one).
>Concerning my name as the author, you should definitely put yours
>(I'll correct this when providing a version for the svn [surely tomorrow])
>That's your work and the least we can do is that you get your name
>somewhere to thank you for your contribution.
>
>>In rules, line 16, instead of
>>_pgsql_inc:="/usr/include/postgresql -I./include"
>>I put calling of pg_config; such behaviour was mentioned
>>in changelog for libpq-dev 8.0.3-13 as more proper now.
>
>yeah, alright with this. In fact that's what I ripped from Ubuntu
>for official 1.2.2. So, this one is definitely ok.
>
>>I also created new variable CPPFLAGS, where I put -I./include
>>taken from _pgsql_inc.
>>Previous situation resulted in warnings from configure script,
>>because instead of putting -I into _pgsql_inc, it was passed
>>to script as parameter, which wasn't sure what to do with that.
>>pgAdmin was being built successfully, but I decided to get
>>rid of this warning.
>>I also had to change a bit calling configure script in line 50,
>>and add CPPFLAGS to it.
>
>Ok, I'll take a look at this. Maybe we can definitely remove that
>old -I./include after all...
>
>
>>I also changed directory from ui to i18n line 106 of file rules.
>
>Perfect.
>
>>Last change I made is adding pgagent and i18n files in pgadmin3.install.
>
>Ok. We'll need a man page for pgagent in a near future if we
>want to upload the things as is for Official Debian.
>I don't know if anybody has began to work on this... Dave ?
>
>>Changelog in attachment.
>
>thanks for this diff.
>
>>One remark.
>>Why there are slony3 and slony3-data package?
>>Both depend on each other, and from my point of view there
>>is no need for them both; maybe it's good idea to merge them.
>>However, I'm not experienced in Debian packages creating,
>>and I don't know why split occurred, so I'll leave these two
>>as they are, without changes. So it's up to you to decide what
>>to do.
>
>I bet you refer to pgadmin3 and pgadmin3-data depending on each
>other. This was first introduced by Andreas Tille and discussed later
>with Peter Eisentraut and Noèl Koethe.
>In pgadmin3 package case, the reason for such a split is mainly due
>to the size of the documentation we provide.
>In this pgadmin3-data package we try to put all the nonarch dependent
>files and actually the PostgreSQL documentation. As it takes quite
>some disk space it's useful to split this for the following reason:
>- one non-arch package used by all the Debian archs prevents
>duplication of files and so save space on the Debian archive
>- as it saves disk space it also saves bandwidth between mirrors
>You may say that this not really interesting to do so for a compressed
>size of approx 1,5 Mo but if you multiply this by a large number of
>package it may be worth doing it.
>Last but not least, as pgadmin3-data contains documentation it should
>be named -doc and not -data, however, this documentation is usefull
>and/or needed for pgadmin3 to run well so it's not pure documentation
>and is mandatory to install. That's why we named it -data and not -doc
>and made the two packages depend exactly on each other.
>That's why it's like this and I won't change it. :)
>
>Thanks for your work, I'll provide an update tomorrow and ask Dave
>or Andreas (the Pflug one) to commit it.
>
>Regards,
>Raphaël
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>