-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 10-10-15 11:30, Markus Wanner wrote: > Two questions regarding the current packaging: Shouldn't #788092 > get closed with >=2.2.0?
Yes. > Should we add a '--with-sfcgal' when invoking configure, so it > catches some errors (rather than silently result in a build w/o > sfcgal)? Not strictly required, and another change you need to undo for pgApt. So I'll leave that up to you. When SFCGAL support is not enabled automatically we'll notice that by the removed symbols, so it's unlikely to cause silent breakage. Regarding SFCGAL support, it's a good thing we need to wait for NEW processing again, because we should get sfcgal (1.2.0-1) into unstable before we move postgis (2.2.x-1) to unstable too. Kind Regards, Bas - -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWGNsPAAoJEGdQ8QrojUrx64MP/iG2+l6lkQOeR2jwcCuUsEST eoHc9+o3Btc4OLeYcGNWJXxRI0sCECYQQxGyKZFjXLNUIThDgbDpdH53Awjnhpv/ NmVAluCYM3XIbX8ajzJkEVKZnXql5/zjaf1IcNYjWxwK8B3LI4R8GS89kg+8bwA2 /THvRPCoVyKebq/ZXKEKfmNnAu2h2HUZ52XfzjpgGJ6ZY1BOzCLcV2CBKUcqwrog 1+MaAShroal1lq5JeI8fH8U7MR0Qe2pH40dyUPZFle5qofcIzR7M/GuREJu2ZY5b qqFm1CXVc5quOr2WZIEu3TQ0oDh3HHsgJ7brzhbjWEq5lBOIXGwYYvAr8nyna1sK rEbjpB/3Cz7ZGKKMgGLtzzGvgxNxJM5S8ngiRSN/mfl1F8YHFJ8sOeOxQ/ooABVb wI6q+lZXnhfBjp7rTe/jDaq/g6G7c2FdAvh0DWk6Yaz+9cxkWvv0F2VfBoGDrgAp r0BN8/z3gb9WKnK0I3pFOg2W8JTdt0HnNofGhmD/Pq1YCBO1jvn/wxaebHUqqX6N ICHfeTAjnLNbMNU1EcY3YYEhcbxQrYTTaRP+Qk7Bn0bdybci53UvQxb/A6JMHqTz sbSSOmm8+DcNuXdAYTRYfMskOwYrjNx8RpQEpvbLr4SE39tWtRNh0c5IOvjZmjlD p8+jWyyt9GEQLY0YaUcv =eR/Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
