Re: Linux Downloads page change

<p><br /> On Jul 9, 2012 4:42 AM, "Magnus Hagander" <<a
href="mailto:magnus@hagander.net">magnus@hagander.net</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:31
AM,Dave Page <<a href="mailto:dpage@pgadmin.org">dpage@pgadmin.org</a>> wrote:<br /> > > On Sun, Jul 8,
2012at 9:56 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <<a href="mailto:devrim@gunduz.org">devrim@gunduz.org</a>> wrote:<br /> >
>>On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 23:05 -0400, Scott Mead wrote:<br /> > >>><br /> > >>> > That
remindsme... Why do we give link to some binary RPMs, where<br /> > >>> SRPMs<br /> > >>> >
arenot available?<br /> > >>><br /> > >>> Those RPMs are built using the certified binaries
thatthe community<br /> > >>> distributes already, but simplifies installation in deeply<br /> >
>>>firewalled / headless server environments.  They also allow for<br /> > >>> side-by-side
installsof major versions ( pg_upgrade compatible ) and<br /> > >>> have since their inception.<br /> >
>><br/> > >> That is not an answer to my question. Why don't you distribute the SRPM?<br /> >
>>How can someone make sure that the RPMs do not include some more extra<br /> > >> code?<br /> >
><br/> > > I assume the SRPM isn't provided because the binaries that are<br /> > > packaged are
actuallythe ones that EDB build (and I wouldn't be<br /> > > surprised if they're generated with BitRock
InstallBuilder,so there<br /> > > wouldn't be an SRPM anyway).<br /> ><p>+1<p>> BitRock can generate RPMs
thesedays? Neat!<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > > That aside though, the code must be 100% open source to be
listedon<br /> > > those download pages; Scottie, where can people find the spec files,<br /> > > BitRock
XMLfiles or whatever?<p>  In the past we have always provided them upon request ( we were asked only nce :).  But we
canwork that out, no problem.<br /><p>><br /> > While I agree with that requirement in general, we should apply
it<br/> > fairly. AFAICT the latest release of the EDB installers that had<br /> > sourcecode with it was 9.0.2 -
Ihave a hard time seeing that nothing<br /> > would've changed since... None of the changes that have been
discussed<br/> > on the lists here in the past couple of months are anywhere to be<br /> > seen.. So should we
removethe EDB installers from the page as well?<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > > Also, I took a quick look at the
GIThistory for the download pages,<br /> > > and as far as I can see there weren't any links to these RPMs in
the<br/> > > past, so I'm not sure what has been removed exactly. Scott; can you<br /> > > point me at the
committhat changed what you're referring to please?<br /> ><br /> > I assume he's referring to:<br /> >
-<p><ahref="<a
href="http://www.openscg.org/postgresql/packages">http://www.openscg.org/postgresql/packages</a>">Download</a><br
/>> the packages from OpenSCG.<<br /> > -<p><i>The multi-platform binary packages are maintained
by<a<br /> > href="<a href="http://www.openscg.org">http://www.openscg.org</a>">Open<br /> ><br /> >
fromcommit b282714a097f767b258e469fb80225b638864a19. They used to be<br /> > on the "generic linux" page, as well as
onthe "generic downloads<br /> > page". They are now only on the "generic downloads page".<p>Exactly, this is the
linkI was talking about.<br /><p>--Scottie<p>><br /> > --<br /> >  Magnus Hagander<br /> >  Me: <a
href="http://www.hagander.net/">http://www.hagander.net/</a><br/> >  Work: <a
href="http://www.redpill-linpro.com/">http://www.redpill-linpro.com/</a><br/>