[resending because I accidentally failed to copy the list]
Dave Page wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>> The large bold warnings about the installers [...] should either
>>> be removed or made non-bold now.
>>
>> I wouldn't want to remove them at all, since they're clearly still
>> correct.
> I still maintain that it should be pretty blindingly obvious that a
> graphical installer isn't an RPM or DEB
I think that there are an awful lot of people capable of running
PostgreSQL who don't understand Linux packaging systems. FWIW, at
least half the tech support staff where I work would fail to assume
that a downloaded graphical installer would not integrate the
software in the same way that, say, the graphical "Package Manager"
on Ubuntu or the graphical form of yast (on SUSE) does. I think the
warning is appropriate.
> and that being the case it seems like clutter on the page that is
> distracting from the more important text that's there and will
> achieve little except cause fewer people to actually read
> everything else.
I will agree that it should probably not be bold. When I pulled one
of these pages up, it tended to be the first thing I read because it
was the only bold item on the page -- my eye was drawn there right
away.
In terms of confusing entries, though, describing the non-yum option
as a "one click installer" makes it sound like it is the fast and
easy way to do this. My experiences with the yum packages is that
there are no clicks needed. I type the apt-get command or pick the
package in the GUI package manager and a few secons later I have a
running PostgreSQL instance without any further interaction, and
which will automatically be updated with new minor releases. I think
we should provide some guidance on the reasons one would want to pick
one or the other.
One other minor point, I don't think we should use initials like PPA
without defining them somewhere. How is someone not versed in Linux
installer jargon supposed to know what a PPA is and whether they
should consider using one?
-Kevin
