ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date.
Michelle Sullivan
michelle at sorbs.net
Sun Jun 15 22:49:18 UTC 2014
Matthew Seaman wrote:
> On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>>> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it
>>> seems you have beaten me to it.
>>>
>> Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that!
>>
>> Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ?
>>
>
> I'll happily work on getting this port committed -- certainly ping me
> for technical review etc. But I don't want to steal it from you if
> you're keen to deal with committing it, or to take the port away from
> Michelle given the work she's already put into it.
>
I did it because I needed it ;-) - if you want to help me (this is
actually the first port I had done) I'm all for that... I just wanted my
email address in the ports tree for the spammers ;-)
>
>>>>>> Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in
>>>>> devel - until it changes?)
>>>>>
>>> pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3
>>> which are all still receiving updates.
>>>
>> Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community ?
>>
>
> Well, to be pedantic about it: precisely one of those versions is in use
> by ports users, as those other ports don't exist yet. Whether there's a
> demand for ports of all of those pgpool-II versions, or we should just
> skip to the latest, is the real question.
>
Personally I think:
databases/pgpool (3.1.x)
databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x)
> Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip
> pgpool-II-3.2
Agreed. (effectively already done)
> and upgrade the existing pgpool-II port to
> pgpool-II-3.3.3. The older pgpool-II ports (and pgpool-I for that
> matter) could probably be deprecated now with a longish (say 6 month)
> expiry time, but that's something for kuriyama@ to decide.
>
Personally - pgpool-II (3.1.6) and pgpool-II-devel (3.3.3+ - and 3.4
when it comes out)
There is reason to keep the last version of pgpool-I ... but move it to
pgpool-I (or pgpool-v2) and mark it as 'no further developement' (as I
think that's true)
> I don't think there's any particular reason to have ports of all the
> different pgpool-II branches in tree, BICBW. If there are major bits of
> functionality dropped or changed incompatibly between those branches,
> then obviously we'd have to reconsider.
>
>
+1
--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list