Re: Adding Oracle Linux to the Linux Download pages

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Lenz Grimmer <lenz(at)grimmer(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't believe it is. I see no problem in adding information about the
> > Oracle linux distribution, just like we have information about Oracle
> > Solaris. This is about providing a service to our users, after all.
>
> Thank you, I appreciate your support. We have users that contacted us
> because
> they want to run newer versions of PostgreSQL on OL. That's why I reached
> out to
> this list.
>
> > Now if Devrim doesn't want to spend time verifying the packages for
> Oracle
> > Linux, that's of course his decision.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > But we can certainly list what the distribution default is. But we could
> then specifically list under the
> > section of "PostgreSQL Yum Repository" which distributions are supported
> there.
>
> Yes, I think it's fine to make that distinction. The top part of
> http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/
> first explains what versions of PG are included by default in which
> versions of RHEL and its derivatives.
> It then points to the yum repo, but without making a clear indication
> which distributions have been tested
> explicitly (and are thus considered "supported"?). If you go to
> http://yum.postgresql.org/, it talks about
> "available platforms", listing RHEL, CentOS and SL (among other
> RPM-based distros).
>
> > (Though in the end I think it would be beneficial to the users if we
> could
> > support Oracle Linux as well, its always a matter of resources vs number
> of
> > users. There are a lot of debian based distributions that aren't
> officially
> > supported by our apt repository either, for example)
>
> Right.
>
> > In fact, we should probably list that there regardless - so people know
> > which versions are actually supported by that repository. Should we
> perhaps
> > even specifically list which versions of each distro?
>
> For the RHEL-based distributions, I think it's sufficient to just
> state the major version (e.g.
> RHEL 6, CentOS 6, etc.) - the minor version (e.g. "6.5") just
> indicates an update release, which is
> primarily a consolidation of all updates/errate that have accumulated.
> Each update release within
> a major release is fully binary compatible (the ABI remains
> unchanged). A version of PostgreSQL
> build on RHEL 6.0 will still run on 6.5.
>
>
Does Oracle Linux use the same version numbering? Right now it's
"RHEL/CentOS/SL 5" - is that equivalent of "Oracle Linux 5", and
"RHEL/CentOS/SL 6" is equivalent of "Oracle Linux 6"?

What's the typical abbreviation used for Oracle Linux? OL?

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