Re: Ready to roll beta

----Message d'origine----
>Sujet: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready to roll beta
>Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:51:10 +0100
>De: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
>A: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
>Copie à: <blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de]
>> Sent: 08 September 2004 09:46
>> To: Dave Page
>> Cc: blacknoz(at)club-internet(dot)fr; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [pgadmin-hackers] Ready to roll beta
>>
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Yes, but to do that (properly) I need to produce the tarball first.
>> > That's the best way to ensure consistent releases. Or are
>> you saying
>> > that we ignore consistency in this instance?
>>
>> I don't understand the problem. The binary is for pginstaller
>> only, and its supporting files (languages) might differ
>> slightly from the official
>> pgAdmin3 beta release (if we allow it) which we wouldn't
>> publish and announce until cvs is tagged.
>>
>> The version number of pgAdmin3 that's included in pgInstaller
>> should reflect that it is functionally identical to pgAdmin3 Beta1.
>>
>> How should this affect consistency?
>
>Because it will claim to be beta1 even though it does not reflect and
>cannot be rebuilt exactly the official beta1 tarball.
>
>Sod it though it's only beta 1... I'll bump the version number and build
>the win32 installer.

What about releasing beta1 as we always do so that win32 can be released. My bet is that all debian troubles are due to mistakes on my side. FC2 is solved with the correct configure line.

Let's go for it. If I need to patch for debian, I'll patch (I already did this for 1.0.2 which did not build properly from scratch...) and send feedback for the next beta so that we have a good stable release.

Cheers,
Raphaël