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- should be 8.0.10 instead of 8.1.3 , the posgresql port should be removed, postgresql7 and psogresql81 are slightly out of date.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 > +========================================================+ > | *---------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------* | > | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | > +========================================================+ > | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | > | reflect the opinions of my employer. | > +========================================================+ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > macports-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
