Re: Re: [pgsql-www] We should not transition to apt.postgresql.org until we have a PPA

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> I really really doubt that for anybody who is not able to use the
>>> distribution provide packages the current instructions are a problem at
>>> all and whatever we do the easiest way to get pg will always be the
>>> package that the distribution has because that one is "perfectly"
>>> integrated and available.
>>
>> History has proven that wasn't the case. We used to get regular emails
>> to webmaster@ from people who were confused about what combination of
>> packages they had to install because it simply wasn't clear, and like
>> it or not, there are a lot of people out there who are not familiar
>> with platform native packaging - including a significant percentage of
>> Oracle users for example.
>
> No, history definitely has not proven that. History has proven that
> *what we had before* was confusing, that it definitely has. But just
> because going from A to B is an improvement, doesn't mean that going
> from B to C can't *also* be an improvement. It only proves that going
> back to A would be.

That's not what I said. If I thought C couldn't be an improvement, I
would have objected to it. I don't and it can be. But right now, it's
a step backwards - it's convoluted and confusing.

> I haven't seen a single email expressing that problem since we put the
> new instructions online in July.

I strongly believe that's because we currently have the distro
provided packages at the top of the list - and as we found before, the
people that have problems tend to only read the first option on the
list, and those instructions are now pretty straight forward.

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

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