Re: Supported Windows version for the Windows installer

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 28, 2017, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <
>>>>>>> adsmail(at)wars-nicht(dot)de> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Windows download site:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.postgresql.org/download/windows/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does not list the supported Windows versions. Someone just sent a
>>>>>>>> question to de(at)postgresql(dot)org, asking if Windows 10 is supported.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can the website be updated, and include the supported Windows
>>>>>>>> versions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Why yes, I am catching up to old email, what makes you think that?)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems like a very good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave, do you think this is something that's doable? This is not
>>>>>>> information that changes *that* often after all, it can probably be
>>>>>>> reasonably maintained manually if you can get it onto the appropriate
>>>>>>> checklist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's too much to easily update manually, can we set up some sort
>>>>>>> of feed from the EDB pages that we can pull and automate the update?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would probably be kinda messy to try to put the info on that page.
>>>>>> It can be found at https://www.enterprisedb.com/s
>>>>>> ervices/edb-supported-products-and-platforms#postgresql.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure that's more messy than we have for others?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty sure it would be. I can work up a patch though if you want.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, please do.
>>>
>>> I was envisioning something like a simple matrix showing earliest and
>>> newest version of Windows supported for each major tree or something like
>>> that. But perhaps you had something more detailed in mind?
>>>
>>
>> How about the attached?
>>
>>
> We really should have a bigger difference between <h2> and <h3>, but
> that's not the job of this patch. And I think having the details trumps
> that part.
>

They looked quite different to me.

>
> In general this looks good, I think.
>
> Would people be confused if we just drop the "Windows" part, and just say
> "2008R2" etc? And maybe just say "64-bit windows platforms" in the header?
> There's a huge amount of repetition of that.
>

I don't think that would be an issue. I'll do the same for macOS

>
> We should probably ask for the same info from the BigSQL people, and I'm
> worried of information overload then.
>
> For the linux installers on redhat/debian/whatnot, it would be good if the
> debian page only listed debian versions, redhat only listed
> redhat/centos/oel etc. I realize that means a bit more duplication, but I
> think that would make it a lot easier for the user.
>

See attached.

>
> For the linux installers I think ther'es another problem as well --
> they're listed under "other linux", but AFAICT there isn't actually a
> single platform that falls under the "other linux" supported on any
> version. This is of course a pre-existing problem -- the previous text
> contradicts itself already.
>

There's Amazon Linux - but honestly I see that page as more of a
"catch-all".

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

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