I am looking at the possibility of cleaning up the binary tree on the ftp 
site, and was wondering what the group thought about purging old binaries.  
What I was thinking would be to remove all but the last minor release of each 
major version.  Thus, I would remove 7.4, but leave 7.4.1.  The space taken 
by binaries is significant (about 1GB at this point).  Since we are keeping 
all source releases (although I would question that, since we use CVS), 
keeping all the binaries around is just a space waster, IMHO.

Comments?
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu


Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:35:57 -0500
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Old binary packages.
Lamar Owen wrote:

>I am looking at the possibility of cleaning up the binary tree on the ftp 
>site, and was wondering what the group thought about purging old binaries.  
>What I was thinking would be to remove all but the last minor release of each 
>major version.  Thus, I would remove 7.4, but leave 7.4.1.  The space taken 
>by binaries is significant (about 1GB at this point).  Since we are keeping 
>all source releases (although I would question that, since we use CVS), 
>keeping all the binaries around is just a space waster, IMHO.
>
>  
>
I would keep 7.3.5, 7.4, 7.4.1 (as 7.4 is the current release) and then 
do as you suggest
for the older binaries.

J



>Comments?
>  
>


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL


Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:00:25 -0800
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Re: Old binary packages.
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes:
> I am looking at the possibility of cleaning up the binary tree on the ftp 
> site, and was wondering what the group thought about purging old binaries.  
> What I was thinking would be to remove all but the last minor release of each
> major version.  Thus, I would remove 7.4, but leave 7.4.1.

I concur with Josh Drake's thought --- leave releases that are less
than, perhaps, six months old, even if they have been superseded in
their series.  Superseded releases that are older than that could be
dispensed with.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:53:48 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Old binary packages. 
Lamar Owen wrote:
> I am looking at the possibility of cleaning up the binary tree on the
> ftp site, and was wondering what the group thought about purging old
> binaries. What I was thinking would be to remove all but the last
> minor release of each major version.  Thus, I would remove 7.4, but
> leave 7.4.1.  The space taken by binaries is significant (about 1GB
> at this point).  Since we are keeping all source releases (although I
> would question that, since we use CVS), keeping all the binaries
> around is just a space waster, IMHO.

Unless you know that someone is actually running out of space, I think 
it would be better to keep past releases around.  I've needed them more 
often than you would think.


Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:20:45 +0100
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Old binary packages.
On Monday 19 January 2004 19:35, Lamar Owen wrote:
> What I was thinking would be to remove all but the last minor release of
> each major version.  Thus, I would remove 7.4, but leave 7.4.1.

Perhaps check the download figures for each first?

-- 
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd

Tue, 20 Jan 2004 08:20:18 +0000
Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
Re: Old binary packages.
On Monday 19 January 2004 03:53 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes:
> > I am looking at the possibility of cleaning up the binary tree on the ftp
> > site, and was wondering what the group thought about purging old
> > binaries. What I was thinking would be to remove all but the last minor
> > release of each major version.  Thus, I would remove 7.4, but leave
> > 7.4.1.

> I concur with Josh Drake's thought --- leave releases that are less
> than, perhaps, six months old, even if they have been superseded in
> their series.  Superseded releases that are older than that could be
> dispensed with.

I'm gong to wait a day or so to see what other input comes through, but this 
is the way I'm currently leaning.  I will make a full mirror of what is there 
now on my own box, and then if somebody screams loudly I can restore things.

While disk may be cheap, it ain't so cheap that wasting it is a good thing.  
With the source releases still available way back, havng binaries that old, 
while useful to some, is not IMO in the best interest of all.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu


Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:03:25 -0500
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: Old binary packages.
Dear Lamar Owen ,

>Since we are keeping 
>all source releases (although I would question that, since we use CVS), 
>keeping all the binaries around is just a space waster, IMHO.
>
>Comments?
>  
>
Keeping 7.X and then 7.X.y  where y is the last minor version for 7.X is 
fine
As you would have noticed from the [general] list that people are still 
stuck to 7.2  branch
So IMO  keeping 7.2 with  as said (7.X.y) is Okay
but please dont take of 7.3 > till 7.4
Because PostgreSQL is the primary and only source for the distribution 
and if for any reason some one need old version where will  he/she go?



-- 
Regards,
Vishal Kashyap

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I Know you believe my words so logon to Jabber.org
and add vishalkashyap@jabber.org to your roster.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
I am usually called as Vishal Kashyap
but my Girl friend calls me as Vishal CASH UP.
This is because others know me because of my generosity
and my Girlfriend knows me because of my CASH.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:43:50 +0530
"V i s h a l Kashyap @ [Sai Hertz And Control Systems]"
	<sank89@sancharnet.in>
Re: Old binary packages.
Lamar Owen wrote:
> While disk may be cheap, it ain't so cheap that wasting it is a good
> thing. With the source releases still available way back, havng
> binaries that old, while useful to some, is not IMO in the best
> interest of all.

But where are the spec files and other stuff that belongs into the old 
RPMs?  Just the source releases are not enough if someone needs to deal 
with old systems.  And since you mentioned it, creating a source 
tarball from CVS does involve human factors and cannot be repeated at 
will.

Some people are still using 7.2, for example, and the first thing you 
want to do if you go there is upgrading to the latest 7.2 release.  By 
removing the binaries without any pressure you're just throwing 
obstacles in people's ways.  I for one will have to make a full mirror 
pretty soon because I do need those old files.


Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:36:16 +0100
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Old binary packages.
On Tuesday 20 January 2004 01:36 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> But where are the spec files and other stuff that belongs into the old
> RPMs?  Just the source releases are not enough if someone needs to deal
> with old systems.  And since you mentioned it, creating a source
> tarball from CVS does involve human factors and cannot be repeated at
> will.

I am willing to make up tarballs of the specs, patches, and scripts that were 
used for each source RPM.  Or just leave the source RPM ready to rebuild in 
place; just getting rid of the precompiled stuff.  Looking at the directory 
listing that is there right now:
v7.0    v7.1    v7.1.2  v7.2    v7.2.2  v7.2.4  v7.3.1  v7.3.3  v7.4
v7.0.3  v7.1.1  v7.1.3  v7.2.1  v7.2.3  v7.3    v7.3.2  v7.3.4  v7.4.1

(oops, that reminds me that I need to roll 7.3.5 packages....argh)

I would look at removing:
v7.0    v7.1    v7.1.2  v7.2    v7.2.2  v7.3.1  v7.3.3 
v7.1.1   v7.2.1  v7.2.3  v7.3    v7.3.2
which would leave:
v7.2.4  v7.4
v7.0.3  v7.1.3  v7.3.4  v7.4.1

And there's nothing there prior to 7.0.  I can, if demand arises, resurrect 
the 6.5, 6.4, 6.3, and 6.2.1 binaries.

But there are serious bugs in some of those versions; keeping them up really 
doesn't serve a purpose: why would we want precompiled binaries for 7.2.2, 
for instance?

> Some people are still using 7.2, for example, and the first thing you
> want to do if you go there is upgrading to the latest 7.2 release.  By
> removing the binaries without any pressure you're just throwing
> obstacles in people's ways.  I for one will have to make a full mirror
> pretty soon because I do need those old files.

I would leave the last minor of each major in place, just removing the minors 
we know to be buggy.  So, to use your example, 7.2.4 would be there for the 
7.2.x users still among us.  And this wouldn't touch the source releases at 
all.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu


Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:05:41 -0500
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: Old binary packages.

> Keeping 7.X and then 7.X.y  where y is the last minor version for 7.X is 
> fine
> As you would have noticed from the [general] list that people are still 
> stuck to 7.2  branch

We have a large number of people using phpPgAdmin with 7.2.x...

Chris


Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:21:57 +0800
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: Old binary packages.