On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com> wrote:
>
>> > 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?
>
> In the past we have always provided them upon request ( we were asked only
> nce :). But we can work that out, no problem.
Yes, please look into that.
>> 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?
>>
>>
>> > 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".
>
> Exactly, this is the link I was talking about.
Given that the whole idea of the redesign is to help people figure out
why they should choose the different options, can you provide a patch
to that page that actually includes a good description of *why* these
would be preferable to the standard RPMs?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/