Re: Apt & Downloads page

On May 14, 2015 8:03 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/14/2015 10:38 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>>> <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/09/2013 11:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that there is some duplication there but afaiks the
instructions
>>>>>> for importing the key are identical and there is quite a diverse set
of
>>>>>> other stuff on bith sites so the only real overlap is the three
bullets
>>>>>> versions for installation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the wiki has a link to the easy-to-use update script, and the
>>>>> downloads page does not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hmm not entirely sure why the script is easier than c&p the commands
>>>> into a shell (you need to download and excute it which is not even
>>>> explained how to do). In any case I would vote for moving that
>>>> script(which needs to be execute as root) to the main website rather
>>>> having it on the wiki which can be more easily "modified".
>>>
>>>
>>> +1, that information should definitely be on the website, and not the
>>> wiki (well, it can be on the wiki as well, of course, but we should
>>> not encourage people to run "random commands off the wiki" as root on
>>> their boxes)
>>
>>
>> Do we want to do anything with this?
>
>
> I think we should. What would be even better is if (at least for Ubuntu)
our members could use apt-add-repository . In this day and age, we
shouldn't be copying and pasting commands, best practice is to turn those
commands into a script and execute a script.

So what would actually be required to use apt-add-repository? Does it
require some extra metadata to be published, or is it just about the
instructions themselves? If so,what should they be for Ubuntu?

/Magnus