Обсуждение: Centos 5 postgis2_92 packages

Hi Packagers,

First up - many thanks for the fantastic job you're doing in providing the community with these packages!

We have some databases on Centos 5 / Postgresql 9.2, which we want to install postgis on. We aren't able to upgrade to
9.3just now. 

The most recent version of postgis2_92 for Centos 5 seems to be 2.0.6. This RPM does not appear to be usable for us -
forone thing is seems to be missing the extension control files. 

There are more recent versions for Centos 5 / Postgres 9.3 (2.1.7) or Centos 6 / Postgres 9.2 (2.1.4).

Was there some particular reason for this (ie. missing libraries, library version conflicts, etc)? Or is it just a case
ofthat combination being considered too old to support? 

Thanks in advance,
Mike Harris

Hi,

On Thu, 2014-10-16 at 07:10 +0000, Michael Harris wrote:

> First up - many thanks for the fantastic job you're doing in providing the community with these packages!

You are welcome!

> We have some databases on Centos 5 / Postgresql 9.2, which we want to install postgis on. We aren't able to upgrade
to9.3 just now. 
>
> The most recent version of postgis2_92 for Centos 5 seems to be 2.0.6. This RPM does not appear to be usable for us -
forone thing is seems to be missing the extension control files. 
>
> There are more recent versions for Centos 5 / Postgres 9.3 (2.1.7) or Centos 6 / Postgres 9.2 (2.1.4).
>
> Was there some particular reason for this (ie. missing libraries, library version conflicts, etc)? Or is it just a
caseof that combination being considered too old to support? 

We cannot push 2.1 to 9.2 without changing the name of the packaging. If
we just update to 2.1 on 9.2, then 2.0 users will be unhappy. Instead,
we can bite the bullet and create something like

postgis_20_92 (for 2.0)
postgis_21_92 (for 2.1)

so that they can be installed in parallel. Jeff/Craig, comments?

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/17/2014 12:25 AM, Jeff Frost wrote:
>
> The naming seems fine to me and then we can have the new package
> name deprecate the old one.

Seems sensible; just Obsoletes: and Provides: it.

I question how much effort should be spent on supporting such an
extremely obsolete platform though.

- --
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUQpx4AAoJELBXNkqjr+S2vHkH/j0dCx9KKtbt0CPkLbJHYw/l
9GmJFFxwlJyPuA+BmrwU49vkv8EDFzi7tza+QlJIrYc/FA43Zw3tI72xROuZsvoR
AH0v5PeM6YO85S4oTPU1iGgB+AHiwZ8LUOFblIjVg+KX1uN9In0g51eP1eVRoXM1
G7eUlWkUHTrFB4xsN2YCcUX0YCfQorP6keAgJ5M5qGhyz4/CBltVbFixwZN5y6n+
mdm3hX/Un60HcXXoLoIHWkxbTwMf6rso329yhw66P66rKVOJ2HvpuxGNwMz4+BJQ
KbteWbmgYrC0HmGFDeKOrzNBoPYXlSJL0nnMHm8ghv50T0waaskmd3RJhNThygk=
=JKIr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

>> Seems sensible; just Obsoletes: and Provides: it.
>>
>> I question how much effort should be spent on supporting such an extremely obsolete platform though.

Hi Craig

Which part of the platform are you referring to there? I presume you don't mean the PG 9.2. Centos5 is not EOL until
2017.Or are you talking about the requirement to keep Postgis 2.0 users happy? 

Thanks,
Mike

On 10/20/2014 07:30 AM, Michael Harris wrote:
> Which part of the platform are you referring to there? I presume you don't mean the PG 9.2. Centos5 is not EOL until
2017.Or are you talking about the requirement to keep Postgis 2.0 users happy? 

I was thinking of CentOS 5 in particular, but you're quite right -
looking at https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata, RH
describe RHEL 5 as actively supported at "production 3" (i.e. security
and critical fixes) level until early 2017.

That doesn't mean the PGDG has to provide community support for
PostgreSQL on the platform of course, but it makes more sense to do so
than if there was no ongoing support from Red Hat.

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Hi,

On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 00:59 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Seems sensible; just Obsoletes: and Provides:

I gave a quick look at this last week. It will not be that easy as I
thought before. We *may* need some help from upstream. Let me see what I
can do.

Regards,

--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

Hi Devrim,

Did you manage to get any further with this?

If not, is there anything we could do to help with it?

If the problem is with changing the name of the existing package, perhaps one solution might be to leave that alone for
Centos5, and just introduce a new package postgis_21_92 for the 2.1/9.2 combination.
 

Thanks
Regards // Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Devrim Gündüz [mailto:devrim@gunduz.org] 
Sent: Monday, 27 October 2014 7:19 PM
To: Craig Ringer
Cc: Jeff Frost; Michael Harris; pgsql-pkg-yum@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-pkg-yum] Centos 5 postgis2_92 packages


Hi,

On Sun, 2014-10-19 at 00:59 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Seems sensible; just Obsoletes: and Provides: 

I gave a quick look at this last week. It will not be that easy as I thought before. We *may* need some help from
upstream.Let me see what I can do.
 

Regards,

--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat
CertifiedEngineer
 
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR