This plan has been abandoned, the page is kept for reference only. -- ChristophBerg 2012-08-20
Integration of PostgreSQL in backports.debian.org
- One PG version in Debian/stable, updated via security and proposed-updates
- Other versions in unstable are backported
- postgresql-common in stable continues to support the "stable" PG version (see /usr/share/postgresql-common/supported-versions)
- Modules/extensions backports only target the "stable" PG version
- Current aim is to remove PG versions from unstable pretty soon
There are packages for all PG versions, but there are no packages for modules built for all PG versions. This proposal wants to fix this.
To support more PG versions in parallel, we propose a few changes:
- We try to keep all PG versions supported by the PostgreSQL project in unstable (only one in testing as before)
- Backports of all (non-stable) versions are created
- postgresql-common in backports is changed to support all versions
- Modules/extensions will be built for all supported versions (where feasible)
- When PG versions are removed from unstable, PG packages in bpo will not be removed (or only removed later), and will receive no updates anymore. (This needs to be communicated, e.g. via the deprecation warnings in postgresql-common.)
- On the next rebuild, modules/extensions are built for the new set of supported versions.
Points to consider
- Is everyone ok with extra PG versions in unstable? (PG maintainers, ftp-master, maybe release?)
- An alternative is to use experimental as staging area before the bpo uploads. The bpo people have argumented that experimental is rarely used and unstable packages would receive better testing, so they would prefer the packages to go to unstable first.
- We need maintainers for the extra PG versions in unstable
-> Christoph Berg, possibly the PG maintainers
- Is it ok to modify postgresql-common for bpo?
- Do the bpo people like the idea of non-testing PG versions in bpo?
- They have their qualms, but they understand this would solve a real world problem. If we communicate this plan via d-d-a and -backports-users, it is ok.