MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABUevEy8fexASzRKE1KLe2t9xHLXkKzMxTO6_BhZ2yOhDHOMXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130214122643.GF30046@msgid.df7cb.de>
	<511D2E58.6010705@agliodbs.com> <511D4E61.5050808@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<20130216013854.GD12029@momjian.us>
	<CA+OCxowefXP67+7GV6gyzdhikfFY-jfobJzyfD_EYM9MFz4rCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5122719B.4090208@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<CA+OCxozKySw4FkUXXHEcFzkU6yG973-QGiOteqpzNvL8ZtqFOQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEy8fexASzRKE1KLe2t9xHLXkKzMxTO6_BhZ2yOhDHOMXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:01:14 +0000
Message-ID: 
 <CA+OCxoxueKcW0LkBSezA+WuZLPAaOYsALtmvFzFqci9dP6HuRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-pkg-debian] Re: We should not transition to
	apt.postgresql.org until we have a PPA
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
	Martin Pitt <mpitt@debian.org>,
	PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL in Debian <pgsql-pkg-debian@postgresql.org>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> 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.

That's not what I said. If I thought C couldn't be an improvement, I
would have objected to it. I don't and it can be. But right now, it's
a step backwards - it's convoluted and confusing.

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

I strongly believe that's because we currently have the distro
provided packages at the top of the list - and as we found before, the
people that have problems tend to only read the first option on the
list, and those instructions are now pretty straight forward.

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www