Обсуждение: Apt & Downloads page
All, apt.postgresql.org redirects to http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt, which has complete instructions and methods for installing from apt.postgresql.org. However, the information on http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ is more-or-less the same as it was 9 months ago, including the hard-to-follow key installation intructions. Might I suggest that http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ replace all of the instructions with a link to the wiki page instead? Instead of maintaining two different sets of instructions. BTW, now that apt.postgresql.org is fully populated, it it awesome! So many packages. Great job guys! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
> apt.postgresql.org redirects to http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt, > which has complete instructions and methods for installing from > apt.postgresql.org. > > However, the information on > http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ is more-or-less the > same as it was 9 months ago, including the hard-to-follow key > installation intructions. > > Might I suggest that http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ > replace all of the instructions with a link to the wiki page instead? > Instead of maintaining two different sets of instructions. http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ (and debian) both have a link to the wiki page already. The instructions are the same, what's to be blamed is the CSS on the download pages, IMHO. I believe people like the list of distributions they can click to setup the good deb entry to sources.list. It is not present in the wiki... If we can have the same list with action on both then it might be interesting to grab the content from the wiki to write it in the download pages. A link is less friendly when you have already clicked several time to reach the instruction page (and are new to PostgreSQL) Note that the linux/redhat page is like the ubuntu/debian, outdated about the last PostgreSQL stable. -- Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52 http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation
On 08/09/2013 09:05 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > apt.postgresql.org redirects to http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt, > which has complete instructions and methods for installing from > apt.postgresql.org. > > However, the information on > http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ is more-or-less the > same as it was 9 months ago, including the hard-to-follow key > installation intructions. > > Might I suggest that http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ > replace all of the instructions with a link to the wiki page instead? > Instead of maintaining two different sets of instructions. I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the instructions for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set of other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three bullets versions for installation. Stefan
On 08/09/2013 09:52 PM, Cédric Villemain wrote: >> apt.postgresql.org redirects to http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Apt, >> which has complete instructions and methods for installing from >> apt.postgresql.org. >> >> However, the information on >> http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ is more-or-less the >> same as it was 9 months ago, including the hard-to-follow key >> installation intructions. >> >> Might I suggest that http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ >> replace all of the instructions with a link to the wiki page instead? >> Instead of maintaining two different sets of instructions. > > http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/ubuntu/ (and debian) both have a link > to the wiki page already. > > The instructions are the same, what's to be blamed is the CSS on the download > pages, IMHO. > > I believe people like the list of distributions they can click to setup the > good deb entry to sources.list. It is not present in the wiki... If we can > have the same list with action on both then it might be interesting to grab > the content from the wiki to write it in the download pages. A link is less > friendly when you have already clicked several time to reach the instruction > page (and are new to PostgreSQL) > > Note that the linux/redhat page is like the ubuntu/debian, outdated about the > last PostgreSQL stable. will fix - thanks for mentioning! Stefan
> I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the instructions > for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set of > other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three bullets > versions for installation. But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the downloads page does not. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 08/09/2013 11:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the instructions >> for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set of >> other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three bullets >> versions for installation. > > But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the > downloads page does not. hmm not entirely sure why the script is easier than c&p the commands into a shell (you need to download and excute it which is not even explained how to do). In any case I would vote for moving that script(which needs to be execute as root) to the main website rather having it on the wiki which can be more easily "modified". Stefan
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > On 08/09/2013 11:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >>> I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the instructions >>> for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set of >>> other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three bullets >>> versions for installation. >> >> But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the >> downloads page does not. > > hmm not entirely sure why the script is easier than c&p the commands > into a shell (you need to download and excute it which is not even > explained how to do). In any case I would vote for moving that > script(which needs to be execute as root) to the main website rather > having it on the wiki which can be more easily "modified". +1, that information should definitely be on the website, and not the wiki (well, it can be on the wiki as well, of course, but we should not encourage people to run "random commands off the wiki" as root on their boxes) -- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner > <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: > > On 08/09/2013 11:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> > >>> I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the instructions > >>> for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set of > >>> other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three bullets > >>> versions for installation. > >> > >> But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the > >> downloads page does not. > > > > hmm not entirely sure why the script is easier than c&p the commands > > into a shell (you need to download and excute it which is not even > > explained how to do). In any case I would vote for moving that > > script(which needs to be execute as root) to the main website rather > > having it on the wiki which can be more easily "modified". > > +1, that information should definitely be on the website, and not the > wiki (well, it can be on the wiki as well, of course, but we should > not encourage people to run "random commands off the wiki" as root on > their boxes) Do we want to do anything with this? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On 05/14/2015 10:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner >> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote: >>> On 08/09/2013 11:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the instructions >>>>> for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set of >>>>> other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three bullets >>>>> versions for installation. >>>> >>>> But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the >>>> downloads page does not. >>> >>> hmm not entirely sure why the script is easier than c&p the commands >>> into a shell (you need to download and excute it which is not even >>> explained how to do). In any case I would vote for moving that >>> script(which needs to be execute as root) to the main website rather >>> having it on the wiki which can be more easily "modified". >> >> +1, that information should definitely be on the website, and not the >> wiki (well, it can be on the wiki as well, of course, but we should >> not encourage people to run "random commands off the wiki" as root on >> their boxes) > > Do we want to do anything with this? I think we should. What would be even better is if (at least for Ubuntu) our members could use apt-add-repository . In this day and age, we shouldn't be copying and pasting commands, best practice is to turn those commands into a script and execute a script. Obviously we can't force people to review the script we provide but it should be as simple (if we aren't going to opt for apt-add-repository) as: wget $URL/getmesomeelephant.sh Jd -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
<p dir="ltr"><br /> On May 14, 2015 8:03 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <<a href="mailto:jd@commandprompt.com">jd@commandprompt.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > On 05/14/2015 10:38AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:<br /> >><br /> >><br /> >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0200, MagnusHagander wrote:<br /> >>><br /> >>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner<br />>>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:<br /> >>>><br /> >>>> On 08/09/2013 11:30 PM,Josh Berkus wrote:<br /> >>>>><br /> >>>>><br /> >>>>>> I agree that thereis some duplication there but afaiks the instructions<br /> >>>>>> for importing the key are identicaland there is quite a diverse set of<br /> >>>>>> other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlapis the three bullets<br /> >>>>>> versions for installation.<br /> >>>>><br /> >>>>><br/> >>>>> But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the<br /> >>>>>downloads page does not.<br /> >>>><br /> >>>><br /> >>>> hmm notentirely sure why the script is easier than c&p the commands<br /> >>>> into a shell (you need to downloadand excute it which is not even<br /> >>>> explained how to do). In any case I would vote for movingthat<br /> >>>> script(which needs to be execute as root) to the main website rather<br /> >>>>having it on the wiki which can be more easily "modified".<br /> >>><br /> >>><br /> >>>+1, that information should definitely be on the website, and not the<br /> >>> wiki (well, it can beon the wiki as well, of course, but we should<br /> >>> not encourage people to run "random commands off the wiki"as root on<br /> >>> their boxes)<br /> >><br /> >><br /> >> Do we want to do anything withthis?<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > I think we should. What would be even better is if (at least for Ubuntu) our memberscould use apt-add-repository . In this day and age, we shouldn't be copying and pasting commands, best practice isto turn those commands into a script and execute a script.<br /><br /><p dir="ltr">So what would actually be required touse apt-add-repository? Does it require some extra metadata to be published, or is it just about the instructions themselves?If so,what should they be for Ubuntu? <br /><p dir="ltr">/Magnus <br />
On 06/11/2015 02:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > those commands into a script and execute a script. > > So what would actually be required to use apt-add-repository? Does it > require some extra metadata to be published, or is it just about the > instructions themselves? If so,what should they be for Ubuntu? Here is the verbiage on it: http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/add-apt-repository.1.html Looks like we could have a ppa, that ppa I assume would just have all the information point to the community servers (versus landscape) or we can also use the command line options to add the repo directly or both. Sincerely, JD > > /Magnus > -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Jun 11, 2015 6:10 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <<a href="mailto:jd@commandprompt.com">jd@commandprompt.com</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > On 06/11/2015 02:52AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:<br /> >><br /> >> those commands into a script and execute a script.<br /> >><br/> >> So what would actually be required to use apt-add-repository? Does it<br /> >> require someextra metadata to be published, or is it just about the<br /> >> instructions themselves? If so,what should theybe for Ubuntu?<br /> ><br /> ><br /> > Here is the verbiage on it:<br /> ><br /> > <a href="http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/add-apt-repository.1.html">http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/add-apt-repository.1.html</a><br />><br /> > Looks like we could have a ppa, that ppa I assume would just have all the information point to the communityservers (versus landscape) or we can also use the command line options to add the repo directly or both.<br /><pdir="ltr">Pretty sure ppa requires it to be on launchpad, no? <p dir="ltr">And afaict it doesn't handle the signing keysfor other repos? If so, I don't really see the gain with having it, since we'd still need multiple steps? <p dir="ltr">/Magnus
On 06/12/2015 07:05 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2015 6:10 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com > <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote: >> Looks like we could have a ppa, that ppa I assume would just have all > the information point to the community servers (versus landscape) or we > can also use the command line options to add the repo directly or both. > > Pretty sure ppa requires it to be on launchpad, no? > > And afaict it doesn't handle the signing keys for other repos? If so, I > don't really see the gain with having it, since we'd still need multiple > steps? IIRC, ppa packages can't depend on other, non-core packages as well, which is why Marco dropped his PPA in the first place. It was too limiting in terms of what he could release. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On 06/12/2015 04:05 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2015 6:10 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com > <mailto:jd@commandprompt.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On 06/11/2015 02:52 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>> those commands into a script and execute a script. >>> >>> So what would actually be required to use apt-add-repository? Does it >>> require some extra metadata to be published, or is it just about the >>> instructions themselves? If so,what should they be for Ubuntu? >> >> >> Here is the verbiage on it: >> >> http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man1/add-apt-repository.1.html >> >> Looks like we could have a ppa, that ppa I assume would just have all > the information point to the community servers (versus landscape) or we > can also use the command line options to add the repo directly or both. > > Pretty sure ppa requires it to be on launchpad, no? > > And afaict it doesn't handle the signing keys for other repos? If so, I > don't really see the gain with having it, since we'd still need multiple > steps? yeah not sure I see that one as an improvment either - unless I'm missing something .... Stefan
On 06/12/2015 11:43 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >> And afaict it doesn't handle the signing keys for other repos? If so, I >> don't really see the gain with having it, since we'd still need multiple >> steps? > > yeah not sure I see that one as an improvment either - unless I'm > missing something .... The only advantage to the ppa is the command syntax. Another simple option would be to do what the yum repo does except using deb. Which is to have a PGDG.deb that gets installed. The .deb would just create to appropriate sources.list files. JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.