Re: Supported Windows version for the Windows installer

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> They should look mroe different :P
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
> *much* less cluttered and easy to read.
>
> The Windows page has "advanced users can use zip archive" after the table,
> and macos before. That should probably be made consistent :)
>

Fixed.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Much nicer as well!
>
>
>
>
>> 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".
>>
>>
> I suggest dropping the table completely from that page, and replacing it
> with a generic sentence.
>
> Something along the line of "The installers are not specifically tested on
> other linux distributions, but can be expected to work in most cases" or
> something like that?
>

Done, and pushed.

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

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