Re: Supported Windows version for the Windows installer

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?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>