Naming of postgresql & related
rhwood at mac.com
Sat Jan 20 06:35:07 PST 2007
I would not remove port:postgresql, but make it an informative port
that installs nothing, instead just spewing out an explanation of the
other postgresql ports.
I would also replace port:postgresql8 with a port:postgresql80 that
carries the 8.0.x postgresql
and otherwise just keep the other postgresqlx ports current.
On 20 Jan 2007, at 07:38, Jann Röder wrote:
> 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
> - 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 removed, postgresql7 and psogresql81 are slightly out of date.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,
> the others should be updated.
> What do you think ?
> 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
>>> (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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> this (for instance, I have a database that would take days to dump
>> contains data that I'm happy to toss when I want to do an upgrade,
>> 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
> macports-dev mailing list
> macports-dev at lists.macosforge.org
rhwood at mac.com
"The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes.
rest is just philosophy."
More information about the macports-dev