On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:01:12PM +0100, Justin Clift wrote: > On 2018-08-28 18:32, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >Well, if we have another installer provider who has similar or better > >performance for things we care about, e.g. reliable updates, support, > >_and_ is willing to host the binaries where we want them, we can switch > >to them. While it is kind of disloyal to change preferred providers, we > >also didn't agree to have them be preferred forever, especially if > >someone better shows up. Of course, switching might be disruptive for > >our installers uses, so we have to consider that too. > > An alternative approach would be for us ("the project") to build official > installers ourselves, with those being the recommended ones.
Uh, we used to do that but found the user support overhead too much.
No, that's not the reason. The user support overhead doesn't change between installers TBH. That changed because the new ones are simply more adapted to user needs.
It was the maintenance burden of them that was simply too terrible. Now, that's better today with more modern tools, but it's still not trivial. So the first thing we'd need if we want to change that back into being community maintained would be volunteers to do the actual work. I'm all for having it volunteer based like we have with apt or yum for example, but that needs to start with people willing to do the work.
