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

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

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

4) Update the package lists, and install the pgdg-keyring package to
automatically get repository key updates

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install pgdg-keyring

They aren't even remotely on parity with each other!

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

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