On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 13:33 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> > Pardon me, but: what the hell? Since when is this page meant to
>> > advertise third-party distributions of Postgres, which the community
>> > has no control over and hasn't even quality-checked?
>>
>> We have done so for years. The origin of each third party distro is
>> clearly marked.
>
> Dave, that isn't true.
Which part? The for years? Check the SVN logs - we've listed
non-postgresql.org PostgreSQL distributions since early 2006 at least.
For *many* more years we listed all manner of additional software
there that could be classed as 'postgresql family' but that we had
zero control over.
> In the last six months that page has become a
> much more clearly defined portal for software "not" postgresql.org.
There's a good reason for that - most packages don't come from
postgresql.org, even those that are coordindated through -packagers.
postgresql.org only actually produces source, Windows and Solaris
binaries, and a handful of RPMs. The vast majority of the packages
come from elsewhere.
> Now I am not saying we should change it (basically because I don't have
> a better answer) but I do think it is important to recognize, publicly
> the pandering to others we are starting to do.
My first priority is making it easy for users to get and run
PostgreSQL. The way those pages are organised now clearly works - I
still haven't seen a 'what do I download' message on the webmaster
list since the redesign - we used to get them on an extremely regular
basis. As we discussed and before it was implemented, I also made a
point of marking the origin of each package quite clearly.
So what exactly is 'isn't true'?
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
