Re: Apt & Downloads page

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(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)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.