Re: PostgreSQL package download for Solaris 11.4

Hi

We would like to make it easier for Solaris users
to use PostgreSQL.

Our first step was to provide CPU cycles to the PostgreSQL
Buildfram (margay).

We created Solaris 11.4 IPS software packages of the versions 13,14,15
and provide them for free without user registration on our website.
Our plan is to produce new pkgs a few days after new updates are available.

The download files can be found on
https://www.jomasoft.ch/downloads/#js-opensource

Would be nice if you could add this link to
/download/solaris/

to make sure users are aware they don't need to
invest their time to build and package PostgreSQL
for Solaris.

Thank you and best regards,
Marcel Hofstetter
JomaSoft GmbH

On 8/15/22 5:37 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:

> We would like to make it easier for Solaris users
> to use PostgreSQL.

Thanks!

> Our first step was to provide CPU cycles to the PostgreSQL
> Buildfram (margay).

Great.

> We created Solaris 11.4 IPS software packages of the versions 13,14,15
> and provide them for free without user registration on our website.
> Our plan is to produce new pkgs a few days after new updates are available.
>
> The download files can be found on
> https://www.jomasoft.ch/downloads/#js-opensource

If this is loading via JavaScript (which it seems like it is based on my
inspect), that will be a nonstarter.

> Would be nice if you could add this link to
> /download/solaris/

Personally (and stated in earlier threads) I am not a fan of linking
offsite to downloads. If you wanted to make the downloads available on
community infrastructure, I could get behind that.

Thanks,

Jonathan

On 8/22/22 14:29, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 8/15/22 5:37 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:
>
>> We would like to make it easier for Solaris users
>> to use PostgreSQL.
>

>
>> Would be nice if you could add this link to
>> /download/solaris/
>
> Personally (and stated in earlier threads) I am not a fan of linking
> offsite to downloads. If you wanted to make the downloads available on
> community infrastructure, I could get behind that.

Since as of now only this:

/download/linux/

has links that stay on site I'm saying the ship has sailed on that.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On 8/22/22 14:29, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > On 8/15/22 5:37 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:
> >
> > > We would like to make it easier for Solaris users
> > > to use PostgreSQL.
> >
>
> >
> > > Would be nice if you could add this link to
> > > /download/solaris/
> >
> > Personally (and stated in earlier threads) I am not a fan of linking
> > offsite to downloads. If you wanted to make the downloads available on
> > community infrastructure, I could get behind that.
>
> Since as of now only this:
>
> /download/linux/
>
> has links that stay on site I'm saying the ship has sailed on that.

+1

Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part. While I
agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a page that
displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript, EDB is
AFAICS currently exactly doing that. On my browser (which always runs with
javascript disabled), I see
https://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/postgres-postgresql-downloads is
yielding "Not supported" for all major versions on Windows.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:00 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > On 8/22/22 14:29, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > > On 8/15/22 5:37 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > We would like to make it easier for Solaris users
> > > > to use PostgreSQL.
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > Would be nice if you could add this link to
> > > > /download/solaris/
> > >
> > > Personally (and stated in earlier threads) I am not a fan of linking
> > > offsite to downloads. If you wanted to make the downloads available on
> > > community infrastructure, I could get behind that.
> >
> > Since as of now only this:
> >
> > /download/linux/
> >
> > has links that stay on site I'm saying the ship has sailed on that.
>
> +1

Agreed.

Now if we are talking about providing Solaris downloads on our own
site again, that's definitely something we can discuss. IIRC not a
single person comlpained/noted when we removed them when they stopped
being maintained -- but no complaints doesn't mean that nobody is
using them. And if Marcel is willing to commit to maintaining them
again, then we should definitely consider it. But that includes things
like timely updates after every minor release, and maintaining all
versions, not just 13 and 14 (assuming there is not a technical reason
making it *impossible* to build other versions).

> Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part. While I
> agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a page that
> displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript, EDB is
> AFAICS currently exactly doing that. On my browser (which always runs with
> javascript disabled), I see
> https://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/postgres-postgresql-downloads is
> yielding "Not supported" for all major versions on Windows.

Please report that as a bug to EDB (webmaster(at)enterprisedb(dot)com),
because I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to be.

//Magnus

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 08:27, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 7:00 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> > > On 8/22/22 14:29, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > > > On 8/15/22 5:37 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We would like to make it easier for Solaris users
> > > > > to use PostgreSQL.
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Would be nice if you could add this link to
> > > > > /download/solaris/
> > > >
> > > > Personally (and stated in earlier threads) I am not a fan of linking
> > > > offsite to downloads. If you wanted to make the downloads available
> on
> > > > community infrastructure, I could get behind that.
> > >
> > > Since as of now only this:
> > >
> > > /download/linux/
> > >
> > > has links that stay on site I'm saying the ship has sailed on that.
> >
> > +1
>
> Agreed.
>
> Now if we are talking about providing Solaris downloads on our own
> site again, that's definitely something we can discuss. IIRC not a
> single person comlpained/noted when we removed them when they stopped
> being maintained -- but no complaints doesn't mean that nobody is
> using them. And if Marcel is willing to commit to maintaining them
> again, then we should definitely consider it. But that includes things
> like timely updates after every minor release, and maintaining all
> versions, not just 13 and 14 (assuming there is not a technical reason
> making it *impossible* to build other versions).
>
>
> > Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part.
> While I
> > agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a page
> that
> > displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript, EDB
> is
> > AFAICS currently exactly doing that. On my browser (which always runs
> with
> > javascript disabled), I see
> > https://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/postgres-postgresql-downloads is
> > yielding "Not supported" for all major versions on Windows.
>
> Please report that as a bug to EDB (webmaster(at)enterprisedb(dot)com),
> because I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to be.
>

It's definitely not.

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 09:03, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 08:27, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part.
>> While I
>> > agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a page
>> that
>> > displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript,
>> EDB is
>> > AFAICS currently exactly doing that. On my browser (which always runs
>> with
>> > javascript disabled), I see
>> > https://www.enterprisedb.com/downloads/postgres-postgresql-downloads is
>> > yielding "Not supported" for all major versions on Windows.
>>
>> Please report that as a bug to EDB (webmaster(at)enterprisedb(dot)com),
>> because I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to be.
>>
>
> It's definitely not.
>

I'm told this is now fixed, and a quick test in Chrome appears to show that
is the case. Please let me know if anyone spots any issues.

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:59:11PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
> I'm told this is now fixed, and a quick test in Chrome appears to show that
> is the case. Please let me know if anyone spots any issues.

I just checked and confirm that I get the links without js enabled, and can
also download the installers.

Thanks!

Hi

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 17:06, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:59:11PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > I'm told this is now fixed, and a quick test in Chrome appears to show
> that
> > is the case. Please let me know if anyone spots any issues.
>
> I just checked and confirm that I get the links without js enabled, and can
> also download the installers.
>
> Thanks!
>

Great, thanks for testing!

--
Dave Page
Blog: https://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Hi

> Now if we are talking about providing Solaris downloads on our own
> site again, that's definitely something we can discuss. IIRC not a
> single person comlpained/noted when we removed them when they stopped
> being maintained -- but no complaints doesn't mean that nobody is
> using them. And if Marcel is willing to commit to maintaining them
> again, then we should definitely consider it. But that includes things
> like timely updates after every minor release, and maintaining all
> versions, not just 13 and 14 (assuming there is not a technical reason
> making it *impossible* to build other versions).

After Tom Lane fixed an issue with buildfarm tests for 11 and 12,
I added this versions for Solaris on our Page

https://www.jomasoft.ch/downloads/#js-opensource

We build the Solaris binary packages within 1 or 2 days after you guys
released the source code.

>> Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part. While I
>> agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a page that
>> displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript

The download page is not for you guys. It is for Solaris users.
They have javascript enabled anyway, because the Oracle Support Portal
and many other modern websites use/require javascript.

For MacOS and Windows a link to external pages is no problem.
Why is it a problem for Solaris and AIX?

As we do the work of the buildfarm, building and creating the packages,
we will keep our page. For me it makes no sense to maintain additional
sites. Where is the benefit for you if the packages are on your site?

Best regards,
Marcel

On 9/12/22 6:42 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:

>
>>> Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part.
>>> While I
>>> agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a
>>> page that
>>> displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript
>
> The download page is not for you guys. It is for Solaris users.
> They have javascript enabled anyway, because the Oracle Support Portal
> and many other modern websites use/require javascript.
>
> For MacOS and Windows a link to external pages is no problem.
> Why is it a problem for Solaris and AIX?

The reason for this with MacOS/Windows installers is historical. Many
folks have mentioned that "this ship has sailed" for adding links to 3rd
party sites, though I will note that we did have a major cleanup in the
recent past by removing a large chunk of those links (see [1], and
possibly some other threads).

> As we do the work of the buildfarm, building and creating the packages,
> we will keep our page. For me it makes no sense to maintain additional
> sites. Where is the benefit for you if the packages are on your site?

There are a few reasons:

1. Consistent user experience. It makes it easier for users to access
the various binaries all in one

2. Easier to troubleshoot when issues occur. We do get reports of
"unable to download XYZ" and find out it is due to an issue on one of
the 3rd party sites. So we then spend our time chasing that down and
trying to get it fixed vs. having control of being able to fix it
ourselves. This creates a bad experience for our users and reflects
poorly on .org, so having more control to be able to remediate issues
more quickly is preferable.

3. Ongoing commitment to support. I'm glad you suggest you'll be able to
have the packages available in 1-2 days; this is typically what would
happen when we would start linking to another website with downloads.
However, we have seen through the years that there is a nonzero chance
that this support degrades, so I think it is good to exercise caution.

4. Cost of upkeep on our end. Dave & I ran a study a few years back
(threads in -www archives) to better understand how much traffic went to
external sources. Outside of the MacOS/Windows installers, the numbers
were fairly minimal[1].

5. Ensuring authenticity / integrity of the downloads. Requirements
include ensuring the packaging files are open source. I don't presently
see those for these packages, but I may also be looking in the wrong place.

Getting a link from .org to a different website is very valuable,
especially for downloads, so I think it's OK for us to be vigorous in
vetting it.

Now, I've mentioned in the past that if we add some policy around
including third party links, I'd be open to that. I'm happy to write up
a draft for that, noting that we're currently in the throes of the major
release cycle.

Thanks,

Jonathan

[1]
/message-id/flat/845d85d4-f46f-99db-436f-4db2da28fcb3%40postgresql.org

On 9/12/22 06:32, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 9/12/22 6:42 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part.
>>>> While I
>>>> agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a
>>>> page that
>>>> displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript
>>
>> The download page is not for you guys. It is for Solaris users.
>> They have javascript enabled anyway, because the Oracle Support Portal
>> and many other modern websites use/require javascript.
>>
>> For MacOS and Windows a link to external pages is no problem.
>> Why is it a problem for Solaris and AIX?
>
> The reason for this with MacOS/Windows installers is historical. Many

Where "...is historical." means they are run through the EDB site and
this is important because of:

/community/contributors/

If moving from third party sites was really important there is no reason
the installers could not have been moved during the clean up mentioned
below or at some time shortly there after. In other words consistency is
important up to a point, then we finesse it.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 3:32 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:

> On 9/12/22 6:42 AM, Marcel Hofstetter wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Also, I don't think it's fair to complain about the javascript part.
> >>> While I
> >>> agree it's laughable that it's now apparently impossible to find a
> >>> page that
> >>> displays text or links without millions of lines code of javascript
> >
> > The download page is not for you guys. It is for Solaris users.
> > They have javascript enabled anyway, because the Oracle Support Portal
> > and many other modern websites use/require javascript.
> >
> > For MacOS and Windows a link to external pages is no problem.
> > Why is it a problem for Solaris and AIX?
>
> The reason for this with MacOS/Windows installers is historical. Many
> folks have mentioned that "this ship has sailed" for adding links to 3rd
> party sites, though I will note that we did have a major cleanup in the
> recent past by removing a large chunk of those links (see [1], and
> possibly some other threads).
>

Yeah. Just because something is bad now, doesn't mean we should double down
on it.

> As we do the work of the buildfarm, building and creating the packages,
> > we will keep our page. For me it makes no sense to maintain additional
> > sites. Where is the benefit for you if the packages are on your site?
>
> There are a few reasons:
>
> 1. Consistent user experience. It makes it easier for users to access
> the various binaries all in one
>
> 2. Easier to troubleshoot when issues occur. We do get reports of
> "unable to download XYZ" and find out it is due to an issue on one of
> the 3rd party sites. So we then spend our time chasing that down and
> trying to get it fixed vs. having control of being able to fix it
> ourselves. This creates a bad experience for our users and reflects
> poorly on .org, so having more control to be able to remediate issues
> more quickly is preferable.
>
> 3. Ongoing commitment to support. I'm glad you suggest you'll be able to
> have the packages available in 1-2 days; this is typically what would
> happen when we would start linking to another website with downloads.
> However, we have seen through the years that there is a nonzero chance
> that this support degrades, so I think it is good to exercise caution.
>
> 4. Cost of upkeep on our end. Dave & I ran a study a few years back
> (threads in -www archives) to better understand how much traffic went to
> external sources. Outside of the MacOS/Windows installers, the numbers
> were fairly minimal[1].
>
> 5. Ensuring authenticity / integrity of the downloads. Requirements
> include ensuring the packaging files are open source. I don't presently
> see those for these packages, but I may also be looking in the wrong place.
>
> Getting a link from .org to a different website is very valuable,
> especially for downloads, so I think it's OK for us to be vigorous in
> vetting it.
>
> Now, I've mentioned in the past that if we add some policy around
> including third party links, I'd be open to that. I'm happy to write up
> a draft for that, noting that we're currently in the throes of the major
> release cycle.
>

Perhaps a reasonable way forward would be to put it under the Software
Catralogue, with a section for PostgreSQL distributions? Then it's more
clear that it's a third party distribution, and we hold those links to a
much lighter moderation level?

//Magnus