Re: Linux Downloads page change

Pah, got denied-post on -www for that email due to it being too large.
Sorry about that - repost, with a link instead - the referenced image
can be found at
http://www.hagander.net/tmp/s_2012-07-09-01-3c6e87.png.

//Magnus

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Cool. I had no idea :) But yah, particularly the RPMs are pretty picky
> about interactivity (for good reasons from their perspective, of
> course, but nevertheless quite picky)
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Attached is a screenshot showing what this page looked like when I
> sent that email. So someone pushed all those changes *after* I sent
> that email, in what looks like an attempt to dispute that statement.
> While we don't have log extracts showing the exact times (should
> probably fix that in the pggit code), there is certainly a push shown
> around 9AM UTC this morning... (and it shows that between this push
> and the previous *of any activity at all* on that repository, there
> have been another 5189 operations on git.postgresql.org - around 3500
> pushes, though that includes pushes from the mirror of the main
> postgresql git repo, so it's a little bit inflated. but it pretty
> clearly matches up to the "no activity in 18 months" that the web
> interface showed)
>
> I know they're *intended* to be opensource. But the normal status is
> they're lagging behind a year or more, so I'm not sure I consider it
> open... My experience shows that whenever I'm looking for something,
> it's not up to date, and it's only pushed when I point it out. It may
> well be that it's pushed at other times as wel of course - but you
> can't really claim it's pushed regularly.
>
>> 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.
>
> I normally wouldn't think you would, but it certainly sounded like
> that, given exactly what that repository looked like this morning -
> and has looked like pretty much every time I've looked at it recently.
> Which was "the installers were once dumped as opensource to make it
> look good, but we don't really care about them being open".
>
> And frankly, I'm a little offended by whomever made that push into the
> repository to dispute my statement, without claiming responsibility
> for doing so. To me, it's rather obvious it was done as a direct
> response to my email. Given the perfect timing. Whoever did it.
>
> So what *is* the intended policy for that repo? It's clearly not the
> primary repo for the edb installers but just a mirror. Which has
> received a total of 50 pushes *since the creation of the new
> git.postgresql.org*, years ago.  So it's clearly not mirrored in
> anything near real time. So when *does* it get pushed, aside from when
> somebody complains?
>
> --
>  Magnus Hagander
>  Me: http://www.hagander.net/
>  Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/