On 2018-08-29 06:49, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:01:12PM +0100, Justin Clift wrote:
>> > On 2018-08-28 18:32, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > >Well, if we have another installer provider who has similar or better
>> > >performance for things we care about, e.g. reliable updates, support,
>> > >_and_ is willing to host the binaries where we want them, we can switch
>> > >to them. While it is kind of disloyal to change preferred providers, we
>> > >also didn't agree to have them be preferred forever, especially if
>> > >someone better shows up. Of course, switching might be disruptive for
>> > >our installers uses, so we have to consider that too.
>> >
>> > An alternative approach would be for us ("the project") to build official
>> > installers ourselves, with those being the recommended ones.
>>
>> Uh, we used to do that but found the user support overhead too much.
>>
> No, that's not the reason. The user support overhead doesn't change
> between
> installers TBH. That changed because the new ones are simply more
> adapted
> to user needs.
>
> It was the maintenance burden of them that was simply too terrible.
> Now,
> that's better today with more modern tools, but it's still not trivial.
> So
> the first thing we'd need if we want to change that back into being
> community maintained would be volunteers to do the actual work. I'm all
> for
> having it volunteer based like we have with apt or yum for example, but
> that needs to start with people willing to do the work.
+1