On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:53 AM Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2022, at 09:49, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> wrote: > Are we able to indicate on the download page that our CentOS RPMs "should" > work on AlmaLinux, though we haven't tested it ourselves?
I think there would be a concern that if a community package doesn't work on Alma, for whatever reason, we're implying that we will provide support in some way. If we qualify it too much, it becomes "Alma exists" rather than useful information for the downloader.
Do you really want to exclude a large portion of the RHEL-clone userbase though? Oracle Linux is listed yet Alma has a much larger user base so I don't really understand the argument here.
It also sounds odd to not want to support someone just because they're running Alma (or some other non-listed RHEL clone like say VZLinux). Since Rocky/Alma/Oracle/etc. are all binary compatible clones of RHEL any bug on one should exist on the others. It would benefit everyone overall to just treat them all the same instead of picking one favorite and in a sense excluding others. Building/testing is one thing but all of the clones that are indeed full clones should be treated the same from a community/support standpoint - for the benefit of users. Almost all other software and open source projects out there have taken this stance, even if they have a primary for building/testing.
