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

On 02/18/2013 07:40 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
>> On 02/18/2013 10:15 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks, we shouldn't be requiring decoder rings here to install Postgres
>>>> --- we have to do better.
>>>
>>> Agreed. A number of years back we did a lot of work to make it easy
>>> for people to download and install PostgreSQL, through redesigns of
>>> the download pages and intentionally directing less technical users to
>>> the easiest ways to get up and running with everything they need to
>>> get started (the one-click installers). That was redesigned a few
>>> months back to point less technical users at the RPM/DEB packages
>>> instead, as it was felt that with the right wording and stabilisation
>>> of the package repos that could be made as easy as the installers.
>>> This is a major step backwards, and needs to be fixed ASAP.
>>
>> I heavily disagree - while there are certainly improvements to be made I
>> don't think what we have is a "major step backwards" - we now have stuff
>> we did not have before, like a much larger selection of packages for a
>> much larger number of distributions and like with every project we ever
>> did we will have to do incremental improvements.
>>
>> 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.
>
>> Comparing for example the current apt.postgresql.org instructions to
>> what we have for the rpm package we are imho on parity (like people
>> complain about it being hard to figure out what their current OS is -
>> you need to know that for rpms as well and afaik there has been no
>> complaints about that).
>
> Seriously? This is from the download pages... Setting up yum.postgresql.org:
>
> 1) Choose the appropriate repo RPM from
> http://yum.postgresql.org/repopackages.php
>
> 2) Install with a command like:
>
> rpm -i http://yum.postgresql.org/9.1/redhat/rhel-6-x86_64/pgdg-redhat91-9.1-5.noarch.rpm

well so far so good - BUT...

>
>
> Compared to... Setting up apt.postgresql.org:
>
> 1) Import the repository signing key
>
> wget -O - http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/ACCC4CF8.asc | sudo
> apt-key add -
>
> 2) Edit the file /etc/apt/sources.list.d/pgdg.list, and add a line for
> the repository, substituting the proper "codename" for your release
>
> deb http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/ squeeze-pgdg main
>
> 3) Configure apt's package pinning to prefer the PGDG packages over
> the standard ones in /etc/apt/preferences.d/pgdg.pref
>
> Package: *
> Pin: release o=apt.postgresql.org
> Pin-Priority: 500

http://yum.postgresql.org/howtoyum.php clearly tells that the above is
necessary as well on redhat if you want to override the distribution
packages:

--
As root, cd /etc/yum.repos.d
Edit distro's .repo file:

On Fedora, edit fedora.repo and fedora-updates.repo, [fedora] sections
On CentOS, edit CentOS-Base.repo, [base] and [updates] sections.
On Red Hat, edit edit /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/rhnplugin.conf [main]
section.

Add
exclude=postgresql*
--

so I still think they are equivalent...

Stefan