Re: Linux Downloads page change

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 23:05 -0400, Scott Mead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > That reminds me... Why do we give link to some binary RPMs, where
>>>> SRPMs
>>>> > are not available?
>>>>
>>>> Those RPMs are built using the certified binaries that the community
>>>> distributes already, but simplifies installation in deeply
>>>> firewalled / headless server environments.  They also allow for
>>>> side-by-side installs of major versions ( pg_upgrade compatible ) and
>>>> have since their inception.
>>>
>>> That is not an answer to my question. Why don't you distribute the SRPM?
>>> How can someone make sure that the RPMs do not include some more extra
>>> code?
>>
>> I assume the SRPM isn't provided because the binaries that are
>> packaged are actually the ones that EDB build (and I wouldn't be
>> surprised if they're generated with BitRock InstallBuilder, so there
>> wouldn't be an SRPM anyway).
>
> BitRock can generate RPMs these days? Neat!

It's been able to do RPMs and DEBs as long as I've been using it. I
tried generating them from our builds, but there's too much
interactivity at different points in the installers, and neither the
RPM or DEB formats can handle it.

>> That aside though, the code must be 100% open source to be listed on
>> those download pages; Scottie, where can people find the spec files,
>> BitRock XML files or whatever?
>
> While I agree with that requirement in general, we should apply it
> fairly. AFAICT the latest release of the EDB installers that had
> sourcecode with it was 9.0.2 - I have a hard time seeing that nothing
> would've changed since... None of the changes that have been discussed
> on the lists here in the past couple of months are anywhere to be
> seen.. So should we remove the EDB installers from the page as well?

The EDB installers are open source, and have been since they were
first published. You can get the code for all branches from
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=edb-installers.git;a=summary, and
that includes not just the installer files, but the entire build
framework. The most recent commit is to the 9.2 branch, from Friday.

I'm not sure why you would think I'd push for a different rule for
OpenSCG than EDB - I've always made a point of trying to apply the
same standards to all our corporate contributors - as a core team
member and a senior member of staff at EDB not only is it the right
thing to do, but it's the only way I can function in both roles. I'm a
little offended that you would suggest otherwise.

>> Also, I took a quick look at the GIT history for the download pages,
>> and as far as I can see there weren't any links to these RPMs in the
>> past, so I'm not sure what has been removed exactly. Scott; can you
>> point me at the commit that changed what you're referring to please?
>
> I assume he's referring to:
> -<p><a href="http://www.openscg.org/postgresql/packages">Download</a>
> the packages from OpenSCG.<
> -<p><i>The multi-platform binary packages are maintained by <a
> href="http://www.openscg.org">Open
>
> from commit b282714a097f767b258e469fb80225b638864a19. They used to be
> on the "generic linux" page, as well as on the "generic downloads
> page". They are now only on the "generic downloads page".

Oh, I see it now. Not sure how I missed that.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company