Re: bringing sfcgal support to postgis
Bas,
thanks for bringing this to my attention.
On 09/03/2015 06:05 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
We can take a similar control template approach as qgis does for its
supported distributions for example. Or maintain separate packaging
branches for Debian & pgApt in git. I prefer the latter.
I'm a bit afraid of mismatches between the two, if we split into
different branches. For users of PgApt, it shouldn't matter whether they
got the package from Debian or PgApt. That's a lot easier to guarantee,
if the two are built from the same set of source files.
Apart from that, what problem would git branches really solve? AFAIK
there's no way to force generation of a control file *before* its
Build-Dependencies are processed (in Debian proper). To have a git
branch that matches what's uploaded, we therefore commit the
debian/control file for the sid variant - even though it's
auto-generated (meaning something you usually shouldn't commit). AFAIU
the PgApt case, the 'clean' target (or maybe just the debian/control
one) is executed before evaluating B-Ds, which allows us to generate
(and override) debian/control, there.
I'm very open to discuss changes to *how* we generate the control file.
(To the point that we'd actually maintain a control file for each
distribution and the "generation" would then barely consist of copying
the right file in place.)
The qgis variant looks interesting, however, I couldn't figure how to
actually generate the control file.
Kind Regards
Markus Wanner
BTW: I didn't see the patch from the OP, as I'm not on debian-gis, just
pkg-grass-devel.
Reply to: