Обсуждение: Confusing Linux download page
Looking at http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux, it says: Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specificpackaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or Portageintegration, pleaseuse the packages below. but below that text is the link for one click installers. That is very confusing. Shouldn't that text be below the one-click installer links, so "below" really means right below. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 02:45, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Looking at http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux, it says: > > Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specific > packaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or Portage integration, please > use the packages below. > > but below that text is the link for one click installers. That is very > confusing. > > Shouldn't that text be below the one-click installer links, so "below" > really means right below. Yes, that page is still fairly confusing. And I still come across a lot of people who have downloaded the oneclick because they thought that's what we recommend - and it's not... I suggest we move the one click installers to below the packages, and also add an index to the page. See http://magnus.webdev.postgresql.org/download/linux for what I mean. I've also fixed the RPM attribution from your other mail on this one. Thoughts? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 02:45, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> Looking at http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux, it says: >> >> Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specific >> packaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or Portage integration, please >> use the packages below. >> >> but below that text is the link for one click installers. That is very >> confusing. >> >> Shouldn't that text be below the one-click installer links, so "below" >> really means right below. > > Yes, that page is still fairly confusing. And I still come across a > lot of people who have downloaded the oneclick because they thought > that's what we recommend - and it's not... And previously we used to get a whole lot of people who didn't understand native packaging for whatever reason (usually because they couldn't figure out what 23 packages to install), for whom the one-clicks are much easier. We *don't* get those people emailing webmaster@ any more, which indicates to me that the current layout works more effectively. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:21, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 02:45, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>> Looking at http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux, it says: >>> >>> Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specific >>> packaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or Portage integration, please >>> use the packages below. >>> >>> but below that text is the link for one click installers. That is very >>> confusing. >>> >>> Shouldn't that text be below the one-click installer links, so "below" >>> really means right below. >> >> Yes, that page is still fairly confusing. And I still come across a >> lot of people who have downloaded the oneclick because they thought >> that's what we recommend - and it's not... > > And previously we used to get a whole lot of people who didn't > understand native packaging for whatever reason (usually because they > couldn't figure out what 23 packages to install), for whom the > one-clicks are much easier. We *don't* get those people emailing > webmaster@ any more, which indicates to me that the current layout > works more effectively. I agree that the current one is better than the old one. That doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > I agree that the current one is better than the old one. That doesn't > mean it can't be improved upon. The primary change in the current one was to put the one-clicks first, so those with a shorter-than-normal attention span found something that just worked and gave them the basics they needed in the vast majority of cases. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:27, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> I agree that the current one is better than the old one. That doesn't >> mean it can't be improved upon. > > The primary change in the current one was to put the one-clicks first, > so those with a shorter-than-normal attention span found something > that just worked and gave them the basics they needed in the vast > majority of cases. I always thought it was listing the different download options for different distributions instead of just "you can download it from our ftp site" that made the difference. Was the three weeks difference between those two changes really enough to determine which one was the effective one? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:27, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that the current one is better than the old one. That doesn't
> >> mean it can't be improved upon.
> >
> > The primary change in the current one was to put the one-clicks first,
> > so those with a shorter-than-normal attention span found something
> > that just worked and gave them the basics they needed in the vast
> > majority of cases.
>
> I always thought it was listing the different download options for
> different distributions instead of just "you can download it from our
> ftp site" that made the difference. Was the three weeks difference
> between those two changes really enough to determine which one was the
> effective one?
Would someone please move:
Note: The one click installers do not integrate with platform-specificpackaging systems. If you need RPM, APT or
Portageintegration, pleaseuse the packages below.
below these bullets:
* Download for 32bit Linux * Download for 64bit Linux
I think at least that is a clear win for clarity.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:27, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> >>> I agree that the current one is better than the old one. That doesn't >>> mean it can't be improved upon. >> >> The primary change in the current one was to put the one-clicks first, >> so those with a shorter-than-normal attention span found something >> that just worked and gave them the basics they needed in the vast >> majority of cases. > > I always thought it was listing the different download options for > different distributions instead of just "you can download it from our > ftp site" that made the difference. Was the three weeks difference > between those two changes really enough to determine which one was the > effective one? I thought the main problem was clear that some people just didn't read enough, or think enough, so putting the simple option first helped. It was usually the people that would reply with 'just give me a URL to what I need' that needed the help. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:43, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:27, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree that the current one is better than the old one. That doesn't >>>> mean it can't be improved upon. >>> >>> The primary change in the current one was to put the one-clicks first, >>> so those with a shorter-than-normal attention span found something >>> that just worked and gave them the basics they needed in the vast >>> majority of cases. >> >> I always thought it was listing the different download options for >> different distributions instead of just "you can download it from our >> ftp site" that made the difference. Was the three weeks difference >> between those two changes really enough to determine which one was the >> effective one? > > I thought the main problem was clear that some people just didn't read > enough, or think enough, so putting the simple option first helped. It > was usually the people that would reply with 'just give me a URL to > what I need' that needed the help. But we *don't* have the simple option first. The simple option is to go into Applications->Software Center, pick postgresql, and click install. That's a hell of a lot simpler than the oneclicks, particularly when you look at patching. I agree that people not reading long enough is probably the issue. Which is why I think it's good to present a list of options first, *before* a direct download option. You will notice that the first link is *still* the one for graphical installers in my suggested rework. -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > But we *don't* have the simple option first. The simple option is to > go into Applications->Software Center, pick postgresql, and click > install. That's a hell of a lot simpler than the oneclicks, > particularly when you look at patching. Only if you have such an app, and you have the required repository configured. If not, then it's a lot more complex to explain. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:58, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> But we *don't* have the simple option first. The simple option is to >> go into Applications->Software Center, pick postgresql, and click >> install. That's a hell of a lot simpler than the oneclicks, >> particularly when you look at patching. > > Only if you have such an app, and you have the required repository > configured. If not, then it's a lot more complex to explain. Well, you and me clearly disagree on which is the easiest for the end users, particularly in the long term. I'd be interested in hearing what others think as well on this, so please chime in if you have an opinion :-) In the interest of moving the discussion forward, what do you think of the changes assuming we move the oneclicks back up to the top of the list? This being then just the addition of an introduction paragraph and a list of all the sub-sections on the page to make them easier to find? (it's particularly hard given that our subheader color really doesn't do a good job of making them stand out) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > In the interest of moving the discussion forward, what do you think of > the changes assuming we move the oneclicks back up to the top of the > list? This being then just the addition of an introduction paragraph > and a list of all the sub-sections on the page to make them easier to > find? (it's particularly hard given that our subheader color really > doesn't do a good job of making them stand out) I'm fine with that. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
On 14 June 2010 00:07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:58, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> Only if you have such an app, and you have the required repository >> configured. If not, then it's a lot more complex to explain. > > Well, you and me clearly disagree on which is the easiest for the end > users, particularly in the long term. I'd be interested in hearing > what others think as well on this, so please chime in if you have an > opinion :-) > I think that if you're running Linux, and you have somehow got yourself into a situation where you don't have a functioning package management tool (apt/portage/whatever), then figuring out how to install postgres is going to be the least of your problems. Cheers, BJ
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 June 2010 00:07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:58, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>> Only if you have such an app, and you have the required repository >>> configured. If not, then it's a lot more complex to explain. >> >> Well, you and me clearly disagree on which is the easiest for the end >> users, particularly in the long term. I'd be interested in hearing >> what others think as well on this, so please chime in if you have an >> opinion :-) >> > > I think that if you're running Linux, and you have somehow got > yourself into a situation where you don't have a functioning package > management tool (apt/portage/whatever), then figuring out how to > install postgres is going to be the least of your problems. It's not about not having a functioning package management tool - it's about there being a surprising number of users that don't care, can't be bothered to learn, or can't figure out what packages to download (remember, PostgreSQL consists of something like 5 - 10 different RPMs on Redhat, and it's not clear to a newbie what each is). Those people are the ones that take up webmaster time by asking for help, so the strategy we settled on was to put the one-click packages at the top to make it easy for them, and the distro-specific instructions further down where they would be read by the people that could be bothered read and figure out what they need for their specific native distro packaging system. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Le 14/06/2010 05:15, Dave Page a écrit : > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 14 June 2010 00:07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 15:58, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>> Only if you have such an app, and you have the required repository >>>> configured. If not, then it's a lot more complex to explain. >>> >>> Well, you and me clearly disagree on which is the easiest for the end >>> users, particularly in the long term. I'd be interested in hearing >>> what others think as well on this, so please chime in if you have an >>> opinion :-) >>> >> >> I think that if you're running Linux, and you have somehow got >> yourself into a situation where you don't have a functioning package >> management tool (apt/portage/whatever), then figuring out how to >> install postgres is going to be the least of your problems. > > It's not about not having a functioning package management tool - it's > about there being a surprising number of users that don't care, can't > be bothered to learn, or can't figure out what packages to download > (remember, PostgreSQL consists of something like 5 - 10 different RPMs > on Redhat, and it's not clear to a newbie what each is). Nope, Brendan has a valid point. If they don't care on how to install their PostgreSQL software, even on their linux desktop, how could they install it on a server, make any upgrade, and so on? Moreover, if they aren't able to read one simple webpage, they also won't read the fine manual, meaning they will ask newbie questions, already anwsered in the book. Not sure we really want to help that kind of people. > Those people > are the ones that take up webmaster time by asking for help, This is something to work on. I understand it's not the webmaster work to do that, but the actual answer (putting the one-click installer first) is probably not the best one. > so the > strategy we settled on was to put the one-click packages at the top to > make it easy for them, and the distro-specific instructions further > down where they would be read by the people that could be bothered > read and figure out what they need for their specific native distro > packaging system. It's perhaps easier for newbie. It's also confusing for others. I don't really mind what we put on this webpage, but it's clear, at least to me :), that the distro packages should be prefered any time, until the people installing PostgreSQL knows exactly the differences between the two. On Windows, the recommended installation, at least what I recommend, should be with the one-click installer (which I personnally find great, and so much better than the old community installer). -- Guillaumehttp://www.postgresql.frhttp://dalibo.com
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 16:17, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> In the interest of moving the discussion forward, what do you think of >> the changes assuming we move the oneclicks back up to the top of the >> list? This being then just the addition of an introduction paragraph >> and a list of all the sub-sections on the page to make them easier to >> find? (it's particularly hard given that our subheader color really >> doesn't do a good job of making them stand out) > > I'm fine with that. I've applied a patch that does this, and simplified a few more things (for example, there's no point in having *two* download links next to each other for the oneclick installer, when they go to the same place..) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 16:17, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> In the interest of moving the discussion forward, what do you think of > >> the changes assuming we move the oneclicks back up to the top of the > >> list? This being then just the addition of an introduction paragraph > >> and a list of all the sub-sections on the page to make them easier to > >> find? (it's particularly hard given that our subheader color really > >> doesn't do a good job of making them stand out) > > > > I'm fine with that. > > I've applied a patch that does this, and simplified a few more things > (for example, there's no point in having *two* download links next to > each other for the oneclick installer, when they go to the same > place..) I like the new layout, and I think the bold text is a help in knowing why you might not want the one-click installer. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Nope, Brendan has a valid point. If they don't care on how to install > their PostgreSQL software, even on their linux desktop, how could they > install it on a server, make any upgrade, and so on? Moreover, if they > aren't able to read one simple webpage, they also won't read the fine > manual, meaning they will ask newbie questions, already anwsered in the > book. Not sure we really want to help that kind of people. So what do you suggest we do - ignore them? Then we get a reputation for being unhelpful. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Le 14/06/2010 13:39, Dave Page a écrit : > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge > <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >> Nope, Brendan has a valid point. If they don't care on how to install >> their PostgreSQL software, even on their linux desktop, how could they >> install it on a server, make any upgrade, and so on? Moreover, if they >> aren't able to read one simple webpage, they also won't read the fine >> manual, meaning they will ask newbie questions, already anwsered in the >> book. Not sure we really want to help that kind of people. > > So what do you suggest we do - ignore them? Then we get a reputation > for being unhelpful. > The page written by Magnus seems good to me. It clearly states what I think: distro packages are recommended. And it lists all the options. Beginning with the one click installer is not an issue to me, as we first clearly stated that the recommended option is the distro packages, provided they are available. -- Guillaumehttp://www.postgresql.frhttp://dalibo.com
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: > Le 14/06/2010 13:39, Dave Page a écrit : >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Guillaume Lelarge >> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote: >>> Nope, Brendan has a valid point. If they don't care on how to install >>> their PostgreSQL software, even on their linux desktop, how could they >>> install it on a server, make any upgrade, and so on? Moreover, if they >>> aren't able to read one simple webpage, they also won't read the fine >>> manual, meaning they will ask newbie questions, already anwsered in the >>> book. Not sure we really want to help that kind of people. >> >> So what do you suggest we do - ignore them? Then we get a reputation >> for being unhelpful. >> > > The page written by Magnus seems good to me. It clearly states what I > think: distro packages are recommended. And it lists all the options. > Beginning with the one click installer is not an issue to me, as we > first clearly stated that the recommended option is the distro packages, > provided they are available. Oh, I'm fine with that too. The people that *will* read will use the right packages, or make a choice to use the one-clicks. The ones that we don't want to have to hand-hold will fall to the 'should work anywhere with minimal fuss' one-click option. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
> Oh, I'm fine with that too. The people that *will* read will use the
> right packages, or make a choice to use the one-clicks. The ones that
> we don't want to have to hand-hold will fall to the 'should work
> anywhere with minimal fuss' one-click option.
+1 from me
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 04:15 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > It's not about not having a functioning package management tool - it's > about there being a surprising number of users that don't care, can't > be bothered to learn, or can't figure out what packages to download > (remember, PostgreSQL consists of something like 5 - 10 different RPMs > on Redhat, and it's not clear to a newbie what each is). FWIW, I pushed something new to my repository. Installing minimal PostgreSQL server is now done via a single command: yum groupinstall "PostgreSQL Database Server" which, I hope, will simplify PostgreSQL installation process via RPMS (yeah, 1-click is still easier). This is similar to how Fedora provides "PostgreSQL Server" group. My group has postgresql, -contrib, -server, -libs packages, which is more than enough to install a PostgreSQL server via RPMs. This is only available for 8.4 - Fedora packages right now, but it will also be available to the rest of the repository in the upcoming days (I'm also working on another improvement, which I will announce when I'm done) I'm also documenting it on repository website, which will appear soon, along with a PDF file. To sum up: 2 commands will be enough to setup a PostgreSQL server on any Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora machine: * install repo RPM * run the yum command above Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
2010/6/15 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 04:15 +0100, Dave Page wrote: >> It's not about not having a functioning package management tool - it's >> about there being a surprising number of users that don't care, can't >> be bothered to learn, or can't figure out what packages to download >> (remember, PostgreSQL consists of something like 5 - 10 different RPMs >> on Redhat, and it's not clear to a newbie what each is). > > FWIW, I pushed something new to my repository. Installing minimal > PostgreSQL server is now done via a single command: > > yum groupinstall "PostgreSQL Database Server" > > which, I hope, will simplify PostgreSQL installation process via RPMS > (yeah, 1-click is still easier). This is similar to how Fedora provides > "PostgreSQL Server" group. My group has postgresql, -contrib, -server, > -libs packages, which is more than enough to install a PostgreSQL server > via RPMs. Nice - that'll be a big help for newbies and timesaver for everyone. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of mar jun 15 09:45:53 -0400 2010: > FWIW, I pushed something new to my repository. Installing minimal > PostgreSQL server is now done via a single command: BTW I find the current situation where both Devrim's and CMD packages are labelled PGDG in the version string a bit dangerous. Won't they collide eventually, when somebody makes a conflicting change? Since no one wants to give up on the PGDG moniker, maybe both should. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 13:31 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > FWIW, I pushed something new to my repository. Installing minimal > > PostgreSQL server is now done via a single command: > > BTW I find the current situation where both Devrim's and CMD packages > are labelled PGDG in the version string a bit dangerous. Won't they > collide eventually, when somebody makes a conflicting change? > > Since no one wants to give up on the PGDG moniker, maybe both should. I also feed ftp.postgresql.org , that's why I use PGDG. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Devrim G�ND�Z wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 13:31 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > FWIW, I pushed something new to my repository. Installing minimal > > > PostgreSQL server is now done via a single command: > > > > BTW I find the current situation where both Devrim's and CMD packages > > are labelled PGDG in the version string a bit dangerous. Won't they > > collide eventually, when somebody makes a conflicting change? > > > > Since no one wants to give up on the PGDG moniker, maybe both should. > > > I also feed ftp.postgresql.org , that's why I use PGDG. With the Command Prompt (CP) 8.4.4 debug/assert build problem reported and fixed last week, how would someone identify they were using CP RPMs, or yours? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > With the Command Prompt (CP) 8.4.4 debug/assert build problem reported > and fixed last week, how would someone identify they were using CP > RPMs, or yours? yum repo conf files show different URLs for the repos. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Devrim G�ND�Z wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > With the Command Prompt (CP) 8.4.4 debug/assert build problem reported > > and fixed last week, how would someone identify they were using CP > > RPMs, or yours? > > yum repo conf files show different URLs for the repos. But the RPM files themselves look the same? That seems confusing. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
2010/6/16 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>: > Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote: > -- Start of PGP signed section. >> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > >> > With the Command Prompt (CP) 8.4.4 debug/assert build problem reported >> > and fixed last week, how would someone identify they were using CP >> > RPMs, or yours? >> >> yum repo conf files show different URLs for the repos. > > But the RPM files themselves look the same? That seems confusing. They would be signed by different keys, right? Is there an easy way to view that? -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mié jun 16 16:23:58 -0400 2010: > Devrim G\xdcND\xdcZ wrote: > -- Start of PGP signed section. > > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > With the Command Prompt (CP) 8.4.4 debug/assert build problem reported > > > and fixed last week, how would someone identify they were using CP > > > RPMs, or yours? > > > > yum repo conf files show different URLs for the repos. > > But the RPM files themselves look the same? That seems confusing. Particularly so if they are being distributed through the FTP site ... Basically I see the status quo as there having been a fork of RPM generation, with neither side wanting to admit that there was a fork in the first place ... -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mié jun 16 16:23:58 -0400 2010: > > Devrim G\xdcND\xdcZ wrote: > > -- Start of PGP signed section. > > > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:45 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > With the Command Prompt (CP) 8.4.4 debug/assert build problem reported > > > > and fixed last week, how would someone identify they were using CP > > > > RPMs, or yours? > > > > > > yum repo conf files show different URLs for the repos. > > > > But the RPM files themselves look the same? That seems confusing. > > Particularly so if they are being distributed through the FTP site ... > > Basically I see the status quo as there having been a fork of RPM > generation, with neither side wanting to admit that there was a fork in > the first place ... Yeah, the bottom line is we can't continue like this indefinitely. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> 2010/6/16 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
>> But the RPM files themselves look the same? �That seems confusing.
> They would be signed by different keys, right? Is there an easy way to
> view that?
It doesn't really matter whether there is a way for a guru to figure out
which is which. It is *not acceptable* for different people to be
generating different RPMs and naming them the same. The confusion
factor for ordinary users will be impossible.
Devrim and Command Prompt need to work this out between themselves and
come up with distinct naming schemes. If they fail to resolve it, core
will have to issue a diktat.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 16:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Devrim and Command Prompt need to work this out between themselves and > come up with distinct naming schemes. If they fail to resolve it, > core will have to issue a diktat. I am willing to change the name, but it will mean that the packages on .org will be changed, too. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 16:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Devrim and Command Prompt need to work this out between themselves and
>> come up with distinct naming schemes. If they fail to resolve it,
>> core will have to issue a diktat.
> I am willing to change the name, but it will mean that the packages
> on .org will be changed, too.
If you're thinking of retroactive changes, that seems even more
confusing. It seems acceptable to me if you just change the names
for future releases to not conflict.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 17:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > It seems acceptable to me if you just change the names for future > releases to not conflict. That is what I was *trying* to say. I just noted that the package suffixes on ftp.pg.org will also be changed, so we need to pick a good name for that. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 16:34 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Basically I see the status quo as there having been a fork of RPM > generation, with neither side wanting to admit that there was a fork > in the first place ... Well, I created the yum repository, CMD owned it (which was quite normal), and I used the same code when I created mine, and added many updates since then (my repo has more packages than the other one). But this is not the whole story. I was already maintaining RPM packages before we created yum repository, for Fedora and for community. My archives say that I've been building packages since 7.2. So, which is a fork? I don't have a definite answer ;) Anyway, I don't want to be involved in this thread, except changing package suffixes. Even though I believe that I should keep PGDG suffix, I am really willing to change it, just to make sure that community feels fine. I created another repo, since I had ~ 40 servers that would prefer to use *my* packages, and also I use packages on my 4 personal machines. These were enough reasons for me to create another repository. Then, I made it public, and many people started using new repository. During this time, I helped Lacey whenever she asked, and I will continue helping her anytime she wants. I hope these explains my attitude. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
> I created another repo, since I had ~ 40 servers that would prefer to
> use *my* packages, and also I use packages on my 4 personal machines.
> These were enough reasons for me to create another repository. Then, I
> made it public, and many people started using new repository. During
> this time, I helped Lacey whenever she asked, and I will continue
> helping her anytime she wants. I hope these explains my attitude.
Isn't there some way we can not have the duplication? I'd far rather
see you *and* Lacey working on packaging more extension projects etc.,
instead of duplicating each other's efforts.
What would it take?
-- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
17.Haz.2010 tarihinde 02:03 saatinde, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> şunları yazdı: > >> Isn't there some way we can not have the duplication? I'd far rather > see you *and* Lacey working on packaging more extension projects > etc., instead of duplicating each other's efforts. > > What would it take? It won't happen, at least for me. I am not duplicating anything.I am just developing, as I am developing for Fedora and EPEL, too. Is that clear for everyone? Also, my repo does not care about monetizing that project, and I guarantee that it will never care in the future. I had same motivations when I was working for CMD. - Devrim GÜNDÜZ PostgreSQL DBA @ Akinon/Markafoni, Red Hat Certified Engineer devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Devrim G�ND�Z wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 16:34 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Basically I see the status quo as there having been a fork of RPM > > generation, with neither side wanting to admit that there was a fork > > in the first place ... > > Well, I created the yum repository, CMD owned it (which was quite > normal), and I used the same code when I created mine, and added many > updates since then (my repo has more packages than the other one). > > But this is not the whole story. I was already maintaining RPM packages > before we created yum repository, for Fedora and for community. My > archives say that I've been building packages since 7.2. So, which is a > fork? I don't have a definite answer ;) > > Anyway, I don't want to be involved in this thread, except changing > package suffixes. Even though I believe that I should keep PGDG suffix, > I am really willing to change it, just to make sure that community feels > fine. Where are we on making the Command Prompt and Devrim RPMs use unique suffixes? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + None of us is going to be here forever. +