Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F61416FA4FF for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 06:13:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SoA2A-0001bl-Cm for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:13:38 +0000 Received: by lbbgm6 with SMTP id gm6so19731645lbb.19 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 02:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Y4Gr6fUq42VruQu9wbFfFxzfCtz+UlQ3XQgKUuW6Fbs=; b=ClTXo1LrkGPzxsUIDdgkFn2+C4ORqN00YaGeIcSHLHKdgDyUjfNibCWrBUJErojvx2 yKTvryBBFgUs/Zdhnm819NTfwxnJOAJTCF6Z2DGKhP2cW+ZEQ+/cYkDyB+tqnSkjLzh+ kLdufiL+4ozzTmu/0/PoYyr54yMw9EurbpcxsrWzQmpGzPK8dzARVlmc4n5bAJg4+CJF 8e6LESjFVdwNhhl8N/GF7Uduu4UVoNOpluF6hNdx3FCKRIA2xCj6ZxkYj9ymRnHzFh2Q WZ8EBz640g7LdZwa44VTTGCzi5kahyqc3qoozsCMxzDvLsy+WuTSUcszmRDo7Kq8ApMQ lP/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.124.180 with SMTP id mj20mr39385350lab.43.1341825201326; Mon, 09 Jul 2012 02:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.63.148 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 02:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.63.148 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jul 2012 02:13:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1341692590.1122.1.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org> <2476F91B-A1B2-45DA-96EB-8F33C79A0E05@openscg.com> <1341781012.3451.0.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 05:13:21 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Linux Downloads page change From: Scott Mead To: Magnus Hagander Cc: "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Devrim_G=DCND=DCZ?= , Dave Page Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0434bfde79ca7404c462061f X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlycK1sjBJ76XhzFgoVvgyXnO7O5KeISRSeChKojMRHzT3niaPkB7cuz6knAjQBWfuwDWzm X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201207/37 X-Sequence-Number: 20786 --f46d0434bfde79ca7404c462061f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jul 9, 2012 4:42 AM, "Magnus Hagander" wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Page wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Devrim G=DCND=DCZ w= rote: > >> On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 23:05 -0400, Scott Mead wrote: > >>> > >>> > That reminds me... Why do we give link to some binary RPMs, where > >>> SRPMs > >>> > are not available? > >>> > >>> Those RPMs are built using the certified binaries that the community > >>> distributes already, but simplifies installation in deeply > >>> firewalled / headless server environments. They also allow for > >>> side-by-side installs of major versions ( pg_upgrade compatible ) and > >>> have since their inception. > >> > >> That is not an answer to my question. Why don't you distribute the SRPM? > >> How can someone make sure that the RPMs do not include some more extra > >> code? > > > > I assume the SRPM isn't provided because the binaries that are > > packaged are actually the ones that EDB build (and I wouldn't be > > surprised if they're generated with BitRock InstallBuilder, so there > > wouldn't be an SRPM anyway). > +1 > BitRock can generate RPMs these days? Neat! > > > > That aside though, the code must be 100% open source to be listed on > > those download pages; Scottie, where can people find the spec files, > > BitRock XML files or whatever? In the past we have always provided them upon request ( we were asked only nce :). But we can work that out, no problem. > > While I agree with that requirement in general, we should apply it > fairly. AFAICT the latest release of the EDB installers that had > sourcecode with it was 9.0.2 - I have a hard time seeing that nothing > would've changed since... None of the changes that have been discussed > on the lists here in the past couple of months are anywhere to be > seen.. So should we remove the EDB installers from the page as well? > > > > Also, I took a quick look at the GIT history for the download pages, > > and as far as I can see there weren't any links to these RPMs in the > > past, so I'm not sure what has been removed exactly. Scott; can you > > point me at the commit that changed what you're referring to please? > > I assume he's referring to: > -

Download > the packages from OpenSCG.< > -

The multi-platform binary packages are maintained by href=3D"http://www.openscg.org">Open > > from commit b282714a097f767b258e469fb80225b638864a19. They used to be > on the "generic linux" page, as well as on the "generic downloads > page". They are now only on the "generic downloads page". Exactly, this is the link I was talking about. --Scottie > > -- > Magnus Hagander > Me: http://www.hagander.net/ > Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ --f46d0434bfde79ca7404c462061f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Jul 9, 2012 4:42 AM, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Devrim G=DCND=DCZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2012-07-07 at 23:05 -0400, Scott Mead wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > That reminds me... Why do we give link to some binar= y RPMs, where
> >>> SRPMs
> >>> > are not available?
> >>>
> >>> Those RPMs are built using the certified binaries that th= e community
> >>> distributes already, but simplifies installation in deepl= y
> >>> firewalled / headless server environments. =A0They also a= llow for
> >>> side-by-side installs of major versions ( pg_upgrade comp= atible ) and
> >>> have since their inception.
> >>
> >> That is not an answer to my question. Why don't you distr= ibute the SRPM?
> >> How can someone make sure that the RPMs do not include some m= ore extra
> >> code?
> >
> > I assume the SRPM isn't provided because the binaries that ar= e
> > packaged are actually the ones that EDB build (and I wouldn't= be
> > surprised if they're generated with BitRock InstallBuilder, s= o there
> > wouldn't be an SRPM anyway).
>

+1

> BitRock can generate RPMs these days? Neat!
>
>
> > That aside though, the code must be 100% open source to be listed= on
> > those download pages; Scottie, where can people find the spec fil= es,
> > BitRock XML files or whatever?

=A0 In the past we have always provided them upon request ( we were aske= d only nce :).=A0 But we can work that out, no problem.

>
> While I agree with that requirement in general, we should apply it
> fairly. AFAICT the latest release of the EDB installers that had
> sourcecode with it was 9.0.2 - I have a hard time seeing that nothing<= br> > would've changed since... None of the changes that have been discu= ssed
> on the lists here in the past couple of months are anywhere to be
> seen.. So should we remove the EDB installers from the page as well? >
>
> > Also, I took a quick look at the GIT history for the download pag= es,
> > and as far as I can see there weren't any links to these RPMs= in the
> > past, so I'm not sure what has been removed exactly. Scott; c= an you
> > point me at the commit that changed what you're referring to = please?
>
> I assume he's referring to:
> -<p><a href=3D"http://www.openscg.org/postgresql/packages">Downl= oad</a>
> the packages from OpenSCG.<
> -<p><i>The multi-platform binary packages are maintained b= y <a
> href=3D"http://www.openscg.org= ">Open
>
> from commit b282714a097f767b258e469fb80225b638864a19. They used to be<= br> > on the "generic linux" page, as well as on the "generic= downloads
> page". They are now only on the "generic downloads page"= ;.

Exactly, this is the link I was talking about.

--Scottie

>
> --
> =A0Magnus Hagander
> =A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/
> =A0Work: http://www.redpill= -linpro.com/

--f46d0434bfde79ca7404c462061f--