On 2012-07-27 02:13, Andrew Ross wrote: > On 26/07/12 06:20, Niels Thykier wrote: >> [...] > > Hi Niels, > > I think it's at least worth fixing bug #659324 which is fixed by > adding in transitional package libpg-java, since this fixes the > upgrade path for this package. If you prefer I could prepare an > upload that only contains that change. >
Certainly, the transition package should not pose a problem (other than it has to go through new?). > Annoyingly since the last release upstream have moved from SVN to > git and removed all the svn tags from their headers, so the change > affects the comments in every file. However the changes from [1] of > any real consequence are: [2] which fixes upstream bug 6293 with > the following comment: > > This solves a major performance problem for ResultSetMetaData > users which did not cache the ResultSetMetaData object. One of the > users is the driver's own implementation of updatable ResultSets, > so this can't be worked around solely in end user code. > > and: [3] which corrects a signed/unsigned issue > Will the reverse dependencies handle these changes correctly? Technically [2] is an API/ABI changes for libraries extending the AbstractJdbc2ResultSet class (but if nothing extends it directly, it won't be a problem I guess). Regarding [3], do clients/rdeps handle negative values correctly (or are they not exposeed to it)? (For reference, dak finds the following reverse dependencies Checking reverse dependencies... # Broken Depends: netbeans: libnb-ide14-java openjpa: libopenjpa-java osmosis: osmosis postgis: libpostgis-java # Broken Build-Depends: jython: libpostgresql-jdbc-java netbeans: libpostgresql-jdbc-java openjpa: libpostgresql-jdbc-java osmosis: libpostgresql-jdbc-java postgis: libpg-java ) > They look fairly safe to me, but I'm happy to go with an update to > the current upstream version if you think that's better. > > Thanks, Andy > > [1] https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/commits/REL9_1_902 [2] > https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/commit/1934bf11c792b086dfa6a245fb732a25293ae91b > > [3] > https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/commit/d71fa760c7d99e206cad607913ed75059363bf0b > > I am fairly certain a transitional package will be accepted, so I am okay with just that. For the others, I would like the release team to pre-approve it before the upload. (i.e. create a full debdiff and send it as an attachment to a new "unblock" bug against release.debian.org) ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
