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

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> 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.

No, history definitely has not proven that. History has proven that
*what we had before* was confusing, that it definitely has. But just
because going from A to B is an improvement, doesn't mean that going
from B to C can't *also* be an improvement. It only proves that going
back to A would be.

I haven't seen a single email expressing that problem since we put the
new instructions online in July.

I have, however, seen fewer questions to me personally (going from
"not too many", to "exactly 0") from people who got installs confused
up. And I haven't had to help anybody fix up an install to get
libraries and whatnot to work properly with third party packages since
that went online.

Now - that was since the new instructions went online, using the old
PPA instructions. I don't have enough data since the
apt.postgresql.org part got in (mid december) to actually say if that
made it better or worse.

>> 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:

<snip>

I definitely agree with this part though - we need to make the apt
instructions to be as easy as the RPM ones. And they are not today.

Whether it's just the instructions that should be improved, or the
technology, is a different question - but it's not as easy as the RPMs
today.

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