Naming of postgresql & related

[Jann Röder]

Hi,
this issue just came to my attention again: On the postgreSQl website
the following versions are available:
- 8.2.1
- 8.1.6
- 8.0.10
- 7.4.15

In macports the following ports are available:

postgresql                     databases/postgresql 7.4.12
postgresql7                    databases/postgresql7 7.4.13
postgresql8                    databases/postgresql8 8.1.3
postgresql81                   databases/postgresql81 8.1.5
postgresql82                   databases/postgresql82 8.2.1

It seems to me that the posgresql8 port is installing the wrong version
- should be 8.0.10 instead of 8.1.3 , the posgresql port should be
removed, postgresql7 and psogresql81 are slightly out of date.

So I think the postgresql port (with no version) should be deleted, and
the others should be updated.

What do you think ?

Jann

Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Jyrki Wahlstedt wrote:
>> I just wonder about naming postgresql, some other ports could have the
>> same. Currently postgresql installs v.7.4.12. Then we have postgresql7
>> (v.7.4.13), postgresql8 (v.8.1.3) and postgresql81 (v.8.1.4). This is
>> a mess. I think postgresql should always be the latest, then we could,
>> if we want, to have version-specific ports (~7, ~8, ~81). How about this?
> 
> This was changed because people do 'port upgrade' and wanted things to
> work. And because of your point below, the easiest thing is to just have
> version-specific ports (and let the user handle the file format
> incompatible upgrades themselves).
> 
> I believe the 'postgresql' port was deprecated when the decision was
> made and that it was intended for it to be removed (but I could remember
> incorrectly).
> 
>> The related thing comes from the fact that the database formats
>> between point versions of postgresql are not compatible (8.0->8.1). Is
>> there a way to make sure that database is dumped before upgrade.
> 
> That is probably possible, but I don't know if it makes sense to attempt
> this (for instance, I have a database that would take days to dump that
> contains data that I'm happy to toss when I want to do an upgrade, but
> the upgrade step can't know that).
> 
> Also, 'upgrade' isn't really a normal target, so it would be a hack in
> the portfile to attempt to do this.
> 
>> Could one ask a question from the user and wait for an answer (to
>> confirm the operation)?
> 
> No. Ports don't prompt for things - this would break unattended
> (scripted) operation.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel J. Luke
> +========================================================+
> | *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net
> ----------------* |
> | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
> +========================================================+
> |   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
> |          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |
> +========================================================+
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev