On 04/09/2014 12:06 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> I also thought that GIS packages are a specialized requirement, but
> Andreas made me reconsider. The topic of Priority optional for GIS
> packages was briefly discussed in November last year, see:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-gis/2013/11/msg00016.html

Thanks for the pointer, I reverted postgis to optional.

> I like the idea of providing a virtual postgis package for others to
> depend on. I don't think the postgresql version needs to be part of
> the virtual package name though, just postgis-extension >= 1.5 would
> suffice for TinyOWS for instance.

Thanks for weighting in here.

I see use for both, with or without the Postgres version. TinyOWS
doesn't need the pg major version, while pgRouting looks like it itself
is an extension and thus Postgres-(major-)version specific.

With a dependency on postgis-extension => 1.5 and postgresql-9.3, you'd
still not cover all cases, because postgresql-9.2-postgis-2.1 would
satisfy the former, but postgresql-9.3 alone doesn't give you the extension.

Of course, postgis could also provide both variants, i.e.
postgis-extension as well as postgresql-9.3-postgis-extension. My gut
feeling is that's overkill, though.


Markus Wanner

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Pkg-grass-devel mailing list

Reply via email to