Thread: Adding Oracle Linux to the Linux Download pages
Hi, I had a quick chat with Andreas Scherbaum about this request, and he suggested I should contact this mailing list about this. Some of you may know that Oracle distributes Oracle Linux, a derivative of RHEL (similar to CentOS or Scientific Linux). The distribution is freely available both as ISO images and RPM packages, including the errata (updates, bug fixes). Since it's fully compatible to RHEL, it also ships with PostgreSQL by default and these packages are covered by the terms of the OL support subscription. I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the list of distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, I'd like to suggest the following changes: On http://www.postgresql.org/download/ replace "RedHat/CentOS/Fedora/Scientific" with "RedHat/CentOS/Fedora/Scientific/Oracle" On http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/ replace "RHEL/CentOS/SL" with "RHEL/CentOS/SL/OL" Thanks in advance for your consideration. Best regards from Hamburg, Germany! Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
On 12/16/2013 03:20 PM, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the list of > distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, I'd like to > suggest the following changes: I don't see any reason why we wouldn't list OL alongside the other Red Hat variants, if the RPMs work on it. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 12/16/2013 03:20 PM, Lenz Grimmer wrote:I don't see any reason why we wouldn't list OL alongside the other Red
> I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the list of
> distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, I'd like to
> suggest the following changes:
Hat variants, if the RPMs work on it.
We should only add those if we are willing to support Oracle Linux. Otherwise we could just make a footnote somewhere saying that they should work there too, but are not supported. At least my understanding is that we do fully support RHEL+CentOS+SL+Fedora. If we can equally well support Oracle it should be added to that list, if not it should be added some other way. But if the RPMs do work, I agree it's probably a good idea to at least mention it.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 12/17/2013 04:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > We should only add those if we are willing to support Oracle Linux. > Otherwise we could just make a footnote somewhere saying that they should > work there too, but are not supported. At least my understanding is that we > do fully support RHEL+CentOS+SL+Fedora. If we can equally well support > Oracle it should be added to that list, if not it should be added some > other way. But if the RPMs do work, I agree it's probably a good idea to at > least mention it. For that matter, do our RPMs work on Amazon Linux? Anyone know? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
Le mardi 17 décembre 2013 03:18:52, Josh Berkus a écrit : > On 12/16/2013 03:20 PM, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > > I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the list > > of distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, I'd > > like to > > > suggest the following changes: > I don't see any reason why we wouldn't list OL alongside the other Red > Hat variants, if the RPMs work on it. What is the added value ? PostgreSQL has RPM package, I'm not sure it is valuable to list the variants, we may list them on yum.postgresql.org or on a download/RPM page so that users can have alternatives between the RPM provided by PGDG and those provided by their distribution system. I believe the download page needs us to remove words, not add more. PS: ok for change #2 , not ok for #1 in Lenz' request. -- Cédric Villemain +33 (0)6 20 30 22 52 http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL: Support 24x7 - Développement, Expertise et Formation
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> On 12/16/2013 03:20 PM, Lenz Grimmer wrote: >> > I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the list >> of >> > distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, I'd like >> to >> > suggest the following changes: >> >> I don't see any reason why we wouldn't list OL alongside the other Red >> Hat variants, if the RPMs work on it. > > > We should only add those if we are willing to support Oracle Linux. > Otherwise we could just make a footnote somewhere saying that they should > work there too, but are not supported. At least my understanding is that we > do fully support RHEL+CentOS+SL+Fedora. If we can equally well support > Oracle it should be added to that list, if not it should be added some > other way. +1. > But if the RPMs do work, I agree it's probably a good idea to at > least mention it. Good point. However somebody needs to be responsible for that. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
On 12/17/2013 12:59 PM, Cédric Villemain wrote: > Le mardi 17 décembre 2013 03:18:52, Josh Berkus a écrit : >> On 12/16/2013 03:20 PM, Lenz Grimmer wrote: >>> I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the list >>> of distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, I'd >>> like to >> >>> suggest the following changes: >> I don't see any reason why we wouldn't list OL alongside the other Red >> Hat variants, if the RPMs work on it. > > What is the added value ? From a customer perspective: I know where I can get "fresh" and updated packages, in case my vendor only provides outdated packages. Since Oracle (in this case) rebrands almost everything, a customer might not be aware that he actually runs a Red Hat system, and might not know the specific underlaying version of the Red Hat system. That said: I agree that we should either provide information that we support this specific platform & version, or that the packages are provided "as is", without support. -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
Hi Magnus, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > We should only add those if we are willing to support Oracle Linux. > Otherwise we could just make a footnote somewhere saying that they should > work there too, but are not supported. At least my understanding is that we > do fully support RHEL+CentOS+SL+Fedora. Can you please elaborate on what "supported" means in this context? http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/ primarily lists what versions of PostgreSQL are actually shipped as part of the distribution already, they are usually "supported" by the distribution itself. So adding Oracle Linux to the list of RHEL derivatives that include PostgreSQL by default per my suggestion here would not have any additional support implications for the PostgreSQL project per se. > If we can equally well support Oracle it should be added to that list, if not it should be added some other > way. But if the RPMs do work, I agree it's probably a good idea to at least mention it. Thanks. Similar to CentOS or Scientific Linux, Oracle Linux is built from the very same RHEL source packages, so it's fully binary compatible. In fact, it would be considered a bug if there is any kind of incompatibility. Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> wrote:
Hi Magnus,Can you please elaborate on what "supported" means in this context?
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> We should only add those if we are willing to support Oracle Linux.
> Otherwise we could just make a footnote somewhere saying that they should
> work there too, but are not supported. At least my understanding is that we
> do fully support RHEL+CentOS+SL+Fedora.
http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/ primarily lists what
versions of PostgreSQL are actually shipped as part of the
distribution already, they are usually "supported" by the distribution
itself. So adding Oracle Linux to the list of RHEL derivatives that
include PostgreSQL by default per my suggestion here would not have
any additional support implications for the PostgreSQL project per se.
I was referring to the section about the PostgreSQL YUM repository. Supported in this case means that the packagers creating that repository (primarily Devrim) will accept and be able to deal with bug reports on this platform.
Granted, we could certainly list it in the section under "included in the distribution", but then we need to make it clear that while it's included there, it's not supported in our repository. Right now we don't make that distinction.
> If we can equally well support Oracle it should be added to that list, if not it should be added some otherThanks. Similar to CentOS or Scientific Linux, Oracle Linux is built
> way. But if the RPMs do work, I agree it's probably a good idea to at least mention it.
from the very same RHEL source packages, so it's fully binary
compatible. In fact, it would be considered a bug if there is any kind
of incompatibility.
Right. The issue from the perspective of the community yum repository is more in the availability of platforms to work on to verify that things actually work, and to reproduce potential issues etc.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Cédric Villemain <cedric@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote: > Le mardi 17 décembre 2013 03:18:52, Josh Berkus a écrit : >> >> > suggest the following changes: >> I don't see any reason why we wouldn't list OL alongside the other Red >> Hat variants, if the RPMs work on it. > > What is the added value ? It would indicate another platform that supports and ships PostgreSQL by default. > PostgreSQL has RPM package, I'm not sure it is valuable to list the variants, > we may list them on yum.postgresql.org or on a download/RPM page so that users > can have alternatives between the RPM provided by PGDG and those provided by > their distribution system. > I believe the download page needs us to remove words, not add more. I was not aware of http://yum.postgresql.org/ - I agree it would make sense to add OL there, too. If you want to shorten the list, how about condensing the various entries on there as follows - instead of one bullet point per distribution, consolidate them into a single bullet per major version: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Scientific Linux 6 ---> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and derivatives (e.g. CentOS, Oracle Linux, Scientific Linux) CentOS 6 Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > For that matter, do our RPMs work on Amazon Linux? Anyone know? They should, since it's also a RHEL6 derivative, albeit with modifications. Their current version actually ships with 9.2 by default: http://aws.amazon.com/amazon-linux-ami/2013.09-packages/ Lenz
Hi, On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 14:46 +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > Similar to CentOS or Scientific Linux, Oracle Linux is built > from the very same RHEL source packages, so it's fully binary > compatible. In fact, it would be considered a bug if there is any kind > of incompatibility. FWIW, I *test* the packages on SL, CentOS and RHEL before pushing them to the public repository. I don't have OL handy. If there is a bug, then we will need to be responsible for any issues that may arise. On the other hand, I am not that willing to add Oracle word to our website. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:59:15PM +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > > For that matter, do our RPMs work on Amazon Linux? Anyone know? > > They should, since it's also a RHEL6 derivative, albeit with > modifications. Their current version actually ships with 9.2 by > default: http://aws.amazon.com/amazon-linux-ami/2013.09-packages/ Well, "modifications" means change, and we don't review those changes, so I don't know how we can say it works. Same with Oracle Linux, which I thought also had some changes compared to REL. This is different from CentOS which I think says they are the same. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
Hi, On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:59:15PM +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote: >> They should, since it's also a RHEL6 derivative, albeit with >> modifications. Their current version actually ships with 9.2 by >> default: http://aws.amazon.com/amazon-linux-ami/2013.09-packages/ > > Well, "modifications" means change, and we don't review those changes, > so I don't know how we can say it works. Same with Oracle Linux, which > I thought also had some changes compared to REL. This is different from > CentOS which I think says they are the same. Oracle Linux ships with a different kernel, yes. However, this does not affect userland applications like PostgreSQL. OL userland remains fully compatible to upstream RHEL, similar to CentOS or SL, the APIs and ABIs do not differ. Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
Hi Devrim, On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: > FWIW, I *test* the packages on SL, CentOS and RHEL before pushing them > to the public repository. Is there an automated test suite that you perform and is it available from somewhere? I'd be glad to give it a whirl on OL. > I don't have OL handy. If there is a bug, then we will need to be responsible for any issues > that may arise. Sure, I understand. FWIW, the ISOs can be freely downloaded from various places. The system is pre-configured to obtain updates from Oracle's public yum repository. See https://wikis.oracle.com/display/oraclelinux/Downloading+Oracle+Linux for a list or sources. > On the other hand, I am not that willing to add Oracle word to our website. I see. Well, if that's the key concern behind this whole discussion, just tell me so right away - there is no point in trying to resolve technical issues, if it's actually about politics. Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> wrote:
Is there an automated test suite that you perform and is it available
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I *test* the packages on SL, CentOS and RHEL before pushing them
> to the public repository.
from somewhere?
I'd be glad to give it a whirl on OL.Sure, I understand. FWIW, the ISOs can be freely downloaded from
> I don't have OL handy. If there is a bug, then we will need to be responsible for any issues
> that may arise.
various places. The system
is pre-configured to obtain updates from Oracle's public yum repository.
See https://wikis.oracle.com/display/oraclelinux/Downloading+Oracle+Linux
for a list or sources.I see. Well, if that's the key concern behind this whole discussion,
> On the other hand, I am not that willing to add Oracle word to our website.
just tell me so right away - there
is no point in trying to resolve technical issues, if it's actually
about politics.
I don't believe it is. I see no problem in adding information about the Oracle linux distribution, just like we have information about Oracle Solaris. This is about providing a service to our users, after all.
Now if Devrim doesn't want to spend time verifying the packages for Oracle Linux, that's of course his decision. But we can certainly list what the distribution default is. But we could then specifically list under the section of "PostgreSQL Yum Repository" which distributions are supported there.
(Though in the end I think it would be beneficial to the users if we could support Oracle Linux as well, its always a matter of resources vs number of users. There are a lot of debian based distributions that aren't officially supported by our apt repository either, for example)
In fact, we should probably list that there regardless - so people know which versions are actually supported by that repository. Should we perhaps even specifically list which versions of each distro?
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 12/22/2013 02:23 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > In fact, we should probably list that there regardless - so people know > which versions are actually supported by that repository. Should we > perhaps even specifically list which versions of each distro? I think this is the main point here: from our perspective we know that OL = RHEL. But one cannot assume that customers know this as well. For any given customer looking for packages for "his" operating system, she/he is probably looking first for packages for "Oracle Linux", and then asking: why is my "Linux" not supported? -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group European PostgreSQL User Group - Board of Directors Volunteer Regional Contact, Germany - PostgreSQL Project
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > I don't believe it is. I see no problem in adding information about the > Oracle linux distribution, just like we have information about Oracle > Solaris. This is about providing a service to our users, after all. Thank you, I appreciate your support. We have users that contacted us because they want to run newer versions of PostgreSQL on OL. That's why I reached out to this list. > Now if Devrim doesn't want to spend time verifying the packages for Oracle > Linux, that's of course his decision. Absolutely. > But we can certainly list what the distribution default is. But we could then specifically list under the > section of "PostgreSQL Yum Repository" which distributions are supported there. Yes, I think it's fine to make that distinction. The top part of http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/ first explains what versions of PG are included by default in which versions of RHEL and its derivatives. It then points to the yum repo, but without making a clear indication which distributions have been tested explicitly (and are thus considered "supported"?). If you go to http://yum.postgresql.org/, it talks about "available platforms", listing RHEL, CentOS and SL (among other RPM-based distros). > (Though in the end I think it would be beneficial to the users if we could > support Oracle Linux as well, its always a matter of resources vs number of > users. There are a lot of debian based distributions that aren't officially > supported by our apt repository either, for example) Right. > In fact, we should probably list that there regardless - so people know > which versions are actually supported by that repository. Should we perhaps > even specifically list which versions of each distro? For the RHEL-based distributions, I think it's sufficient to just state the major version (e.g. RHEL 6, CentOS 6, etc.) - the minor version (e.g. "6.5") just indicates an update release, which is primarily a consolidation of all updates/errate that have accumulated. Each update release within a major release is fully binary compatible (the ABI remains unchanged). A version of PostgreSQL build on RHEL 6.0 will still run on 6.5. Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
Hi, On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail@wars-nicht.de> wrote: > I think this is the main point here: from our perspective we know that OL = > RHEL. But one cannot assume that customers know this as well. > > For any given customer looking for packages for "his" operating system, > she/he is probably looking first for packages for "Oracle Linux", and then > asking: why is my "Linux" not supported? That's exactly the question that we receive, hence my request. Thanks for your consideration! Lenz -- Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> wrote:
What's the typical abbreviation used for Oracle Linux? OL?
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:Thank you, I appreciate your support. We have users that contacted us because
> I don't believe it is. I see no problem in adding information about the
> Oracle linux distribution, just like we have information about Oracle
> Solaris. This is about providing a service to our users, after all.
they want to run newer versions of PostgreSQL on OL. That's why I reached out to
this list.Absolutely.
> Now if Devrim doesn't want to spend time verifying the packages for Oracle
> Linux, that's of course his decision.Yes, I think it's fine to make that distinction. The top part of
> But we can certainly list what the distribution default is. But we could then specifically list under the
> section of "PostgreSQL Yum Repository" which distributions are supported there.
http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/
first explains what versions of PG are included by default in which
versions of RHEL and its derivatives.
It then points to the yum repo, but without making a clear indication
which distributions have been tested
explicitly (and are thus considered "supported"?). If you go to
http://yum.postgresql.org/, it talks about
"available platforms", listing RHEL, CentOS and SL (among other
RPM-based distros).Right.
> (Though in the end I think it would be beneficial to the users if we could
> support Oracle Linux as well, its always a matter of resources vs number of
> users. There are a lot of debian based distributions that aren't officially
> supported by our apt repository either, for example)For the RHEL-based distributions, I think it's sufficient to just
> In fact, we should probably list that there regardless - so people know
> which versions are actually supported by that repository. Should we perhaps
> even specifically list which versions of each distro?
state the major version (e.g.
RHEL 6, CentOS 6, etc.) - the minor version (e.g. "6.5") just
indicates an update release, which is
primarily a consolidation of all updates/errate that have accumulated.
Each update release within
a major release is fully binary compatible (the ABI remains
unchanged). A version of PostgreSQL
build on RHEL 6.0 will still run on 6.5.
Does Oracle Linux use the same version numbering? Right now it's "RHEL/CentOS/SL 5" - is that equivalent of "Oracle Linux 5", and "RHEL/CentOS/SL 6" is equivalent of "Oracle Linux 6"?
What's the typical abbreviation used for Oracle Linux? OL?
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Hi Magnus,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
Does Oracle Linux use the same version numbering? Right now it's "RHEL/CentOS/SL 5" - is that equivalent of "Oracle Linux 5", and "RHEL/CentOS/SL 6" is equivalent of "Oracle Linux 6"?
Yes, that's correct - the major version numbers and the respective update releases of Oracle Linux are equivalent to upstream RHEL.
What's the typical abbreviation used for Oracle Linux? OL?
Yes, even though the long variant is preferred. It's definitely *not* "OEL" or "Unbreakable Linux" - these brand names have been obsoleted more than three years ago.
Thank you!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> wrote:
Hi Magnus,On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:Does Oracle Linux use the same version numbering? Right now it's "RHEL/CentOS/SL 5" - is that equivalent of "Oracle Linux 5", and "RHEL/CentOS/SL 6" is equivalent of "Oracle Linux 6"?Yes, that's correct - the major version numbers and the respective update releases of Oracle Linux are equivalent to upstream RHEL.What's the typical abbreviation used for Oracle Linux? OL?Yes, even though the long variant is preferred. It's definitely *not* "OEL" or "Unbreakable Linux" - these brand names have been obsoleted more than three years ago.
Yeah, we don't really have space for the long variant in the version list. We abbreviate with RHEL and SL there already, so we should do the same here.
I have pushed an update with this information which should hit the website within an hour. Reviews are appreciated, as I changed some other things around as well to make things more clear (for example, trying to consistently refer to things as "RedHat Family" of distributions).
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
Yeah, we don't really have space for the long variant in the version list. We abbreviate with RHEL and SL there already, so we should do the same here.
Sure, that's fine.
I have pushed an update with this information which should hit the website within an hour. Reviews are appreciated, as I changed some other things around as well to make things more clear (for example, trying to consistently refer to things as "RedHat Family" of distributions).
Looks great, thank you very much! Much appreciated. Next I'd love to have Oracle Linux being officially supported by the RPMs available from the dedicated yum repos, but I guess that's something I have to bring up over at pgsqlrpms-hackers@PgFoundry.org first, seems like updating the web pages is the smallest problem :)
Hi,
That is the old list -- still, *I* am against supporting OL for political reasons.
Regards, Devrim
--
Devrim Gündüz
That is the old list -- still, *I* am against supporting OL for political reasons.
Regards, Devrim
Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> wrote:
Hi,On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:Yeah, we don't really have space for the long variant in the version list. We abbreviate with RHEL and SL there already, so we should do the same here.Sure, that's fine.I have pushed an update with this information which should hit the website within an hour. Reviews are appreciated, as I changed some other things around as well to make things more clear (for example, trying to consistently refer to things as "RedHat Family" of distributions).Looks great, thank you very much! Much appreciated. Next I'd love to have Oracle Linux being officially supported by the RPMs available from the dedicated yum repos, but I guess that's something I have to bring up over at pgsqlrpms-hackers@PgFoundry.org first, seems like updating the web pages is the smallest problem :)Thanks again!
Lenz
--
Devrim Gündüz
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> I have pushed an update with this information which should hit the website
> within an hour. Reviews are appreciated, as I changed some other things
> around as well to make things more clear (for example, trying to
> consistently refer to things as "RedHat Family" of distributions).
FWIW, Red Hat spells their name as two words.
(Yes, the typography in the corporate logo is unfortunate.)
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:FWIW, Red Hat spells their name as two words.
> I have pushed an update with this information which should hit the website
> within an hour. Reviews are appreciated, as I changed some other things
> around as well to make things more clear (for example, trying to
> consistently refer to things as "RedHat Family" of distributions).
(Yes, the typography in the corporate logo is unfortunate.)
Yeah, Devrim pointed that out to me shortly after that commit, so I've fixed that already. Turns out there were plenty of such mentions there already. The only ones left now are, AFAICS, the ones in old international pressreleases.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
That is the old list --
In that case, https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RPM_Installation should probably be updated - I assume "pgsql-pkg-yum" would be the appropriate one instead?
still, *I* am against supporting OL for political reasons.
I see. I admit I'm not familiar with the decision making / voting process in the PostgreSQL community, but what does it take to get a definitive and final decision on this?
There is genuine interest from Oracle Linux users in getting "official" support for newer PostgreSQL builds on their distribution, but in the end it's of course up to you...
Lenz
There is genuine interest from Oracle Linux users in getting "official" support for newer PostgreSQL builds on their distribution, but in the end it's of course up to you...
Lenz
Hi, On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 00:20 +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote: > I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the > list of distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular, > I'd like to suggest the following changes: I just added repo RPMs for Oracle Linux 6 to PostgreSQL 9.3 repository. I'll add 9.1 and 9.2 later this week, after doing some more testing. http://yum.postgresql.org/news-oracle-linux-support-added.php Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
Rocking! Thanks a lot for this Devrim, much appreciated. I'll make sure to spread the word about this.
LenzOn Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
Hi,I just added repo RPMs for Oracle Linux 6 to PostgreSQL 9.3 repository.
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 00:20 +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote:
> I'd like to ask if it would be possible to add Oracle Linux to the
> list of distributions on the PostgreSQL download pages. In particular,
> I'd like to suggest the following changes:
I'll add 9.1 and 9.2 later this week, after doing some more testing.
http://yum.postgresql.org/news-oracle-linux-support-added.php
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR
--
Lenz Grimmer <lenz@grimmer.com> - http://www.lenzg.net/