Re: Supported Windows version for the Windows installer

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Thanks!
>
> Now we just have to try to keep it in sync :) Perhaps something to add to
> the major release checklist?
>

I added a note.

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

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