Re: Supported Windows version for the Windows installer

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 :)

>
>
>>
>> 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?

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