Hi,

As you know, many databases that run on Linux / Unix systems have a GUI
installer which make installation easier and more attractive for some
people.

Our Windows Installer is very attractive, for example.

Now, I and Burcu Guzel, who is a Senior Programmer, decided to launch a
new project: pgnixinstaller :

http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgnixinstaller/

We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.

Regards,
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Search Discussions

  • Doug McNaught at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:03 am

    Devrim GUNDUZ writes:

    http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgnixinstaller/

    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    What value does this bring to systems that have a good package system
    and up-to-date repositories? I can install Postgres today on Ubuntu
    using a GUI tool, and install another GUI tool to configure and
    adminsiter it.

    For systems like Solaris I can see it maybe being a win.

    Are you going to work with the underlying system's package manager, or
    put everything in /usr/local?

    -Doug
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:13 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:03 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:

    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    What value does this bring to systems that have a good package system
    and up-to-date repositories? I can install Postgres today on Ubuntu
    using a GUI tool, and install another GUI tool to configure and
    adminsiter it.
    You can install, but what if you need different configure options than
    the package provides? This means a rebuild of the package. Instead, we
    will build and install that package via the installer.

    OTOH, exluding Synaptic that I hate to use, FC / RH does not have a GUI
    RPM interface for the repositories. So our installer will help them a
    lot. Also, our installer will have an option to download and install the
    prebuilt binaries from PostgreSQL FTP site (and possible other sites)
    For systems like Solaris I can see it maybe being a win. Agreed.
    Are you going to work with the underlying system's package manager, or
    put everything in /usr/local?
    We'll work with the package manager -- I'm an RPM guy ;)

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Andrew Dunstan at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:27 am

    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
    OTOH, exluding Synaptic that I hate to use, FC / RH does not have a GUI
    RPM interface for the repositories. So our installer will help them a
    lot. Also, our installer will have an option to download and install the
    prebuilt binaries from PostgreSQL FTP site (and possible other sites)


    There's yumex ... http://fedoranews.org/tchung/yumex/

    cheers

    andrew
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:32 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:27 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

    OTOH, exluding Synaptic that I hate to use, FC / RH does not have a GUI
    RPM interface for the repositories. So our installer will help them a
    lot. Also, our installer will have an option to download and install the
    prebuilt binaries from PostgreSQL FTP site (and possible other sites)
    There's yumex ... http://fedoranews.org/tchung/yumex/
    Thanks for the info. I haven't heard about it before...

    However none of them are PostgreSQL Installers, none of them has the
    ability to customize the packages and none of them has the ability to
    install the community packages, etc. :)

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Vivek Khera at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:45 am

    On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    However none of them are PostgreSQL Installers, none of them has the
    ability to customize the packages and none of them has the ability to
    install the community packages, etc. :)
    You need to take a sniff over at the FreeBSD ports. Lets you build
    customized install of Pg quite easily, without need for a gui, which
    none of my big servers have.
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 9:16 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 22:45 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
    However none of them are PostgreSQL Installers, none of them has the
    ability to customize the packages and none of them has the ability to
    install the community packages, etc. :)
    You need to take a sniff over at the FreeBSD ports. Lets you build
    customized install of Pg quite easily, without need for a gui, which
    none of my big servers have.
    There are some people who do use GUI on their servers and do not know
    how to compile a software or do not want to build a software via command
    line.

    This is called "marketing". :)

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Chris Browne at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 22:45 -0500, Vivek Khera wrote:
    However none of them are PostgreSQL Installers, none of them has the
    ability to customize the packages and none of them has the ability to
    install the community packages, etc. :)
    You need to take a sniff over at the FreeBSD ports. Lets you build
    customized install of Pg quite easily, without need for a gui, which
    none of my big servers have.
    There are some people who do use GUI on their servers and do not know
    how to compile a software or do not want to build a software via command
    line.

    This is called "marketing". :)
    I have to wonder if these people, so helpless that they cannot manage
    their Unix servers without this GUI tool, will be able to get any of
    the applications installed that were supposed to use the database.

    From what I can see, this is merely putting off the "learning cliff,"
    and possibly in a dangerous way.
    --
    let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
    http://linuxfinances.info/info/nonrdbms.html
    Actually, typing random strings in the Finder does the equivalent of
    filename completion. (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the
    intuitiveness of commands: file completion vs. the Mac Finder.)
  • Doug McNaught at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:31 am

    Devrim GUNDUZ writes:
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:03 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:

    What value does this bring to systems that have a good package system
    and up-to-date repositories? I can install Postgres today on Ubuntu
    using a GUI tool, and install another GUI tool to configure and
    adminsiter it.
    You can install, but what if you need different configure options than
    the package provides? This means a rebuild of the package. Instead, we
    will build and install that package via the installer.
    That's actually a pretty cool idea--compile and generate debs/rpms
    that reflect the user's choices, then install them. But the
    dependency on a compiler adds a twist of complexity--"sorry, you need
    to install the following system packages (gcc, etc) before you can
    install Postgres as you've configured it." Not horrible, but perhaps
    intimidating for the GUI crowd? :) Is gcc in the bog-standard
    default install on FC these days?

    Certainly you can install pre-built binaries without a compiler, and
    let the user choose database location, autovacuum settings and stuff
    like that.

    Good luck!

    -Doug
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:36 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:31 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:

    Certainly you can install pre-built binaries without a compiler, and
    let the user choose database location, autovacuum settings and stuff
    like that.
    That's another good point. We can adjust many settings before
    installing.

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:45 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:31 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:
    You can install, but what if you need different configure options than
    the package provides? This means a rebuild of the package. Instead, we
    will build and install that package via the installer.
    That's actually a pretty cool idea--compile and generate debs/rpms
    that reflect the user's choices, then install them. But the
    dependency on a compiler adds a twist of complexity--"sorry, you need
    to install the following system packages (gcc, etc) before you can
    install Postgres as you've configured it." Not horrible, but perhaps
    intimidating for the GUI crowd? :) Is gcc in the bog-standard
    default install on FC these days?
    We can pre-check the prerequisites for building the package and raise an
    error before beginning to build the package. It is not that hard. For
    example, RPMs have BuildRequires tags and we can compare those with the
    packages installed in the system.

    BTW, gcc is not installed on by default AFAIR.

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Marc G. Fournier at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:03 am

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    BTW, gcc is not installed on by default AFAIR.
    Wow, how do you update the kernel each week? :)

    More seriously, I know under FreeBSD, one of the first things that gets
    done after installing is to customize the kernel to get rid of all the
    'cruft' part of the generic kernel, I take it that this isn't something
    that ppl do with Linux?

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:15 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 22:04 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

    BTW, gcc is not installed on by default AFAIR.
    Wow, how do you update the kernel each week? :)

    More seriously, I know under FreeBSD, one of the first things that gets
    done after installing is to customize the kernel to get rid of all the
    'cruft' part of the generic kernel, I take it that this isn't something
    that ppl do with Linux?
    On systems that have a packaging system, you are supposed to download
    and install vendor kernels. There is "no need" to build the kernel.
    However, if you want to build, then you need to install development
    environment.

    On my RHEL boxes, I do never ever recompile the kernel since Red Hat
    does not provide support if I do so :)

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Marc G. Fournier at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:24 am

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    On my RHEL boxes, I do never ever recompile the kernel since Red Hat
    does not provide support if I do so :)
    Is everything 'loadable modules' then? I can't imagine you have some
    mammoth kernel running on your system, do you? with every conceivable
    piece of hardware configured in?

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
  • Doug McNaught at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:54 am

    "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    On my RHEL boxes, I do never ever recompile the kernel since Red Hat
    does not provide support if I do so :)
    Is everything 'loadable modules' then? I can't imagine you have some
    mammoth kernel running on your system, do you? with every conceivable
    piece of hardware configured in?
    Yes, vendor kernels are very modular--most drivers, packet filtering,
    scsi etc are all loadable modules. You can of course build your own
    kernel with only the drivers you need built-in, but it usually doesn't
    make very much difference. The module system works, in general,
    extremely well.

    -Doug
  • Joshua D. Drake at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:49 am

    Marc G. Fournier wrote:
    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    On my RHEL boxes, I do never ever recompile the kernel since Red Hat
    does not provide support if I do so :)

    Is everything 'loadable modules' then? I can't imagine you have some
    mammoth kernel running on your system, do you? with every conceivable
    piece of hardware configured in?
    Yes except for "core" modules almost everything in Linux is a loadable
    module.

    Sincerely,

    Joshua D. Drake
  • Jonah H. Harris at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:27 am
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in Java...
    IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could build off some
    nice OSS installers that already exist (such as IzPack). Just my 2 cents :)

    On 1/30/06, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 22:04 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

    BTW, gcc is not installed on by default AFAIR.
    Wow, how do you update the kernel each week? :)

    More seriously, I know under FreeBSD, one of the first things that gets
    done after installing is to customize the kernel to get rid of all the
    'cruft' part of the generic kernel, I take it that this isn't something
    that ppl do with Linux?
    On systems that have a packaging system, you are supposed to download
    and install vendor kernels. There is "no need" to build the kernel.
    However, if you want to build, then you need to install development
    environment.

    On my RHEL boxes, I do never ever recompile the kernel since Red Hat
    does not provide support if I do so :)

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/


    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
  • Tino Wildenhain at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:46 am

    Jonah H. Harris schrieb:
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in Java...
    IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could build off
    some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as IzPack). Just my 2
    cents :)
    Yes! Use Java for ultimate suckiness of the installer ;) I love to
    install all X11, Java and stuff on a server to be able to install
    a package with about 1/10 the size ;)

    SCNR
    Tino
  • Thomas Hallgren at Jan 31, 2006 at 8:52 am

    Tino Wildenhain wrote:
    Jonah H. Harris schrieb:
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in
    Java... IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could
    build off some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as
    IzPack). Just my 2 cents :)
    Yes! Use Java for ultimate suckiness of the installer ;) I love to
    install all X11, Java and stuff on a server to be able to install
    a package with about 1/10 the size ;)
    How about postponing choice of implementation language until it's clear what it is that
    should be implemented ;-)

    Regards,
    Thomas Hallgren
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 9:16 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:27 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in
    Java... IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could
    build off some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as
    IzPack). Just my 2 cents :)
    Bundling Java is a pain, so we'd better stay away from that.

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Thomas Hallgren at Jan 31, 2006 at 11:51 am

    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:27 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in
    Java... IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could
    build off some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as
    IzPack). Just my 2 cents :)
    Bundling Java is a pain, so we'd better stay away from that.
    There's always gcj. It's pretty mature by now. I'm not sure about availability compared to
    Python though, but I find it hard to believe it would be more painful.

    Regards,
    Thomas Hallgren
  • Chris Browne at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:27 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in
    Java... IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could
    build off some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as
    IzPack). Just my 2 cents :)
    Bundling Java is a pain, so we'd better stay away from that.
    There's always gcj. It's pretty mature by now. I'm not sure about
    availability compared to Python though, but I find it hard to believe
    it would be more painful.
    On several occasions, I have installed graphical Python apps; it has
    never been the bag of worms involved in getting a Java environment
    into place...
    --
    select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'gmail.com';
    http://linuxfinances.info/info/wp.html
    Signs of a Klingon Programmer #7: "Klingon function calls do not have
    'parameters' -- they have 'arguments' -- and they ALWAYS WIN THEM."
  • Thomas Hallgren at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    Christopher Browne wrote:
    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:27 -0500, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
    I had to deal with an installer written in python and several in
    Java... IMHO, Java would be a better language for this and you could
    build off some nice OSS installers that already exist (such as
    IzPack). Just my 2 cents :)
    Bundling Java is a pain, so we'd better stay away from that.
    There's always gcj. It's pretty mature by now. I'm not sure about
    availability compared to Python though, but I find it hard to believe
    it would be more painful.
    On several occasions, I have installed graphical Python apps; it has
    never been the bag of worms involved in getting a Java environment
    into place...
    Install gcj and you're up and running, graphics and all. What's the problem (besides your
    obvious aversion to Java)?

    Or take it one step further and use gcj to compile the Java code into statically linked
    binaries. Where's the pain, really?

    Regards,
    Thomas Hallgren
  • Andrew Dunstan at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:24 am

    Marc G. Fournier wrote:
    More seriously, I know under FreeBSD, one of the first things that
    gets done after installing is to customize the kernel to get rid of
    all the 'cruft' part of the generic kernel, I take it that this isn't
    something that ppl do with Linux?
    The Linux kernel has loadable modules, so it's much less of an issue.
    For example, I just installed the Cisco VPN s/w on my FC4 box. I didn't
    have to rebuild the kernel, all I have to do is to load the kernel
    module that puts a wedge in the IP stack.

    The parts of the kernel that are optional are almost all loadable modules.

    Some people do build static kernels. That makes sense when you have
    tightly controlled hardware and software requirements. I mostly don't
    bother.

    cheers

    andrew
  • Marc G. Fournier at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:34 am

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:03 -0500, Doug McNaught wrote:

    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    What value does this bring to systems that have a good package system
    and up-to-date repositories? I can install Postgres today on Ubuntu
    using a GUI tool, and install another GUI tool to configure and
    adminsiter it.
    You can install, but what if you need different configure options than
    the package provides? This means a rebuild of the package. Instead, we
    will build and install that package via the installer.

    OTOH, exluding Synaptic that I hate to use, FC / RH does not have a GUI
    RPM interface for the repositories. So our installer will help them a
    lot. Also, our installer will have an option to download and install the
    prebuilt binaries from PostgreSQL FTP site (and possible other sites)
    And pull down/build/install the various extensions on pgFoundry? :)

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 1:37 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 21:34 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
    OTOH, exluding Synaptic that I hate to use, FC / RH does not have a GUI
    RPM interface for the repositories. So our installer will help them a
    lot. Also, our installer will have an option to download and install the
    prebuilt binaries from PostgreSQL FTP site (and possible other sites)
    And pull down/build/install the various extensions on pgFoundry? :)
    Another good idea. Thanks Marc.

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Tino Wildenhain at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:36 am

    Devrim GUNDUZ schrieb:
    Hi,
    ...
    Are you going to work with the underlying system's package manager, or
    put everything in /usr/local?

    We'll work with the package manager -- I'm an RPM guy ;)
    RPM isnt the only packaging system out there ;)
  • Marc G. Fournier at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:50 am

    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Tino Wildenhain wrote:

    Devrim GUNDUZ schrieb:
    Hi,
    ...
    Are you going to work with the underlying system's package manager, or
    put everything in /usr/local?

    We'll work with the package manager -- I'm an RPM guy ;)
    RPM isnt the only packaging system out there ;)
    I thought that Linux had this 'Linux Standard File System' or some such
    that described where files were supposed to be installed? Or is this
    another one of those Standards that nobody follows? :(

    I know under FreeBSD, its simple: --prefix=/usr/local and away you go ...

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
  • Jeffrey W. Baker at Jan 31, 2006 at 8:10 am

    On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 03:50 -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
    On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Tino Wildenhain wrote:

    Devrim GUNDUZ schrieb:
    Hi,
    ...
    Are you going to work with the underlying system's package manager, or
    put everything in /usr/local?

    We'll work with the package manager -- I'm an RPM guy ;)
    RPM isnt the only packaging system out there ;)
    I thought that Linux had this 'Linux Standard File System' or some such
    that described where files were supposed to be installed? Or is this
    another one of those Standards that nobody follows? :(
    Package management goes beyond sticking the files in the right place.
    If that were the only requirement, then tar(1) would be a package
    manager.

    As for the Linux Standards Base, that is little more than Red Hat and
    their like-minded friends getting together in a committee and declaring
    the way they already do everything to be a "standard". Generally the
    LSB holds the short-term needs of commercial Linux distributors above
    other considerations.

    -jwb
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 9:16 am
    Hi,
    On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 08:36 +0100, Tino Wildenhain wrote:

    Are you going to work with the underlying system's package manager, or
    put everything in /usr/local?

    We'll work with the package manager -- I'm an RPM guy ;)
    RPM isnt the only packaging system out there ;)
    I used RPM as an alias to package managers :)

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Chris Browne at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:38 am

    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    You'd better define the purpose pretty clearly, as I don't see any
    purpose that's of value, yet.

    On my Debian systems, I can install PostgreSQL quite readily via the
    command "apt-get install postgresql-8.1", which can get GUIed at least
    somewhat if I run aptitude, synaptic, or such...

    I could see there being some value in a GUI for managing postmaster
    config files...
    --
    let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
    http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
    "High-level languages are a pretty good indicator that all else is
    seldom equal." - Tim Bradshaw, comp.lang.lisp
  • Joshua D. Drake at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:52 am


    On my Debian systems, I can install PostgreSQL quite readily via the
    command "apt-get install postgresql-8.1", which can get GUIed at least
    somewhat if I run aptitude, synaptic, or such...
    Yes Christopher, you can... I can, and Devrim can....

    As more and more people come on board people are going to want to
    download a .exe (a metaphor),
    double click and have it open an installer, they will then want to click
    next, next, continue, finish.

    You don't get that with apt-get install.

    There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on Linux,
    because most people installing
    the software:

    A. Don't know how to use it
    B. Probably don't know how to use Linux
    C. Don't want to.

    Joshua D. Drake
  • Marc G. Fournier at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:58 am

    On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:



    On my Debian systems, I can install PostgreSQL quite readily via the
    command "apt-get install postgresql-8.1", which can get GUIed at least
    somewhat if I run aptitude, synaptic, or such...
    Yes Christopher, you can... I can, and Devrim can....

    As more and more people come on board people are going to want to download a
    .exe (a metaphor),
    double click and have it open an installer, they will then want to click
    next, next, continue, finish.

    You don't get that with apt-get install.

    There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on Linux,
    because most people installing
    the software:

    A. Don't know how to use it
    B. Probably don't know how to use Linux
    C. Don't want to.
    i can't agree more ... I don't care whether you are running FreeBSD or
    Linux or Solaris ... if you want broader adoption of non-Microsoft OSs,
    you have to make it simplier for 'the masses' to make use of ... and GUIs
    tend to follow KISS very closely ...

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
  • Rick Gigger at Jan 31, 2006 at 4:11 am
    I don't see why anyone has a problem with this. I am certainly never
    going to use it but if it helps someone who isn't a linux person to
    use it on a project when they would have used something else (like
    mysql) or if it convinces someone to run postgres on linux instead of
    windows because they now have a graphical installer on linux then it
    seems like a good thing to me. More users = bigger community =
    larger potential pool of people to help out. Even if people can't
    code they can answer newbie (or advanced) questions on the mailing
    lists or write documentation or even just tell their dba friends
    about it.

    The more people using postgres the better. If this will help then
    I'm all for it. Just because I would rather do a ./configure make
    make install doesn't mean that thats the best route for everyone.

    Rick

    On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:58 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
    On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

    On my Debian systems, I can install PostgreSQL quite readily via the
    command "apt-get install postgresql-8.1", which can get GUIed at
    least
    somewhat if I run aptitude, synaptic, or such...
    Yes Christopher, you can... I can, and Devrim can....

    As more and more people come on board people are going to want to
    download a .exe (a metaphor),
    double click and have it open an installer, they will then want to
    click next, next, continue, finish.

    You don't get that with apt-get install.

    There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on
    Linux, because most people installing
    the software:

    A. Don't know how to use it
    B. Probably don't know how to use Linux
    C. Don't want to.
    i can't agree more ... I don't care whether you are running FreeBSD
    or Linux or Solaris ... if you want broader adoption of non-
    Microsoft OSs, you have to make it simplier for 'the masses' to
    make use of ... and GUIs tend to follow KISS very closely ...

    ----
    Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://
    www.hub.org)
    Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
    7615664

    ---------------------------(end of
    broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
  • Tino Wildenhain at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:54 am

    Rick Gigger schrieb:
    I don't see why anyone has a problem with this. I am certainly never
    going to use it but if it helps someone who isn't a linux person to use
    it on a project when they would have used something else (like mysql)
    or if it convinces someone to run postgres on linux instead of windows
    because they now have a graphical installer on linux then it seems like
    a good thing to me. More users = bigger community = larger potential
    pool of people to help out. Even if people can't code they can answer
    newbie (or advanced) questions on the mailing lists or write
    documentation or even just tell their dba friends about it.

    The more people using postgres the better. If this will help then I'm
    all for it. Just because I would rather do a ./configure make make
    install doesn't mean that thats the best route for everyone.
    As was said, a gui to produce postgresql.conf files (off host)
    can be of value. Also for the tune-people a package builder
    can be useful too.

    For other people - if they dont learn a bit about their package system
    on their choosen system - they will run into other problems soon or
    later.
  • Rick Gigger at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    On Jan 31, 2006, at 12:54 AM, Tino Wildenhain wrote:

    Rick Gigger schrieb:
    I don't see why anyone has a problem with this. I am certainly
    never going to use it but if it helps someone who isn't a linux
    person to use it on a project when they would have used something
    else (like mysql) or if it convinces someone to run postgres on
    linux instead of windows because they now have a graphical
    installer on linux then it seems like a good thing to me. More
    users = bigger community = larger potential pool of people to
    help out. Even if people can't code they can answer newbie (or
    advanced) questions on the mailing lists or write documentation
    or even just tell their dba friends about it.
    The more people using postgres the better. If this will help
    then I'm all for it. Just because I would rather do a ./
    configure make make install doesn't mean that thats the best
    route for everyone.
    As was said, a gui to produce postgresql.conf files (off host)
    can be of value. Also for the tune-people a package builder
    can be useful too.

    For other people - if they dont learn a bit about their package system
    on their choosen system - they will run into other problems soon or
    later.
    Why would the necessarily have to run into problem with their
    packaging system. If someone installs from source it doesn't cause
    problems with packaging systems. Why should this have to be any
    different?
  • Jeffrey W. Baker at Jan 31, 2006 at 4:41 am

    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 19:52 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:


    On my Debian systems, I can install PostgreSQL quite readily via the
    command "apt-get install postgresql-8.1", which can get GUIed at least
    somewhat if I run aptitude, synaptic, or such...
    Yes Christopher, you can... I can, and Devrim can....

    As more and more people come on board people are going to want to
    download a .exe (a metaphor),
    double click and have it open an installer, they will then want to click
    next, next, continue, finish.
    There is such a thing as best practices. If you install postgresql in
    this glorious graphical manner, what will prevent you from accidentally
    upgrading a shared library which postgresql depends upon? Nothing,
    really, unless this installer is going to be able to customize, build,
    and install a native package on all the target operating systems.

    How will you do an orderly upgrade from one revision to the next,
    including all the dependencies? How will you distribute security
    updates?

    I predict this form of installation will cause a great many support
    headaches as users report problems which are caused by oddball
    compilers, strange CFLAGS, unreleased or strangely patched versions of
    shared libraries and headers, and so forth.
    You don't get that with apt-get install.
    Right, with apt-get install you get a package built with a known-good
    compiler, known-sane configure flags, and a method of pinning the
    dependencies, which passes at the very least a smoketest on Alpha,
    AMD64, ARM, HPPA, x86, IA64, 640x0, MIPS, PowerPC, S/390, and SPARC.
    There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on Linux,
    because most people installing
    the software:

    A. Don't know how to use it
    B. Probably don't know how to use Linux
    C. Don't want to.
    Oracle's graphical installer is a material impediment to Oracle
    adoption. The installer only works on systems where particular versions
    of Java and Motif libraries are available. On 64-bit Opteron systems it
    only works with the peculiar 32-bit thunking tree favored by Red Hat and
    hardly anybody else.

    If I could install Oracle on Debian/AMD64 with a shell script, I'd drop
    Postgresql in a heartbeat.

    Obviously anybody is welcome and able to just write whatever software
    they feel is needed, but go ahead and count me among the skeptics.

    -jwb
  • Joshua D. Drake at Jan 31, 2006 at 4:55 am

    Oracle's graphical installer is a material impediment to Oracle
    adoption. The installer only works on systems where particular versions
    of Java and Motif libraries are available. On 64-bit Opteron systems it
    only works with the peculiar 32-bit thunking tree favored by Red Hat and
    hardly anybody else.

    If I could install Oracle on Debian/AMD64 with a shell script, I'd drop
    Postgresql in a heartbeat.

    Obviously anybody is welcome and able to just write whatever software
    they feel is needed, but go ahead and count me among the skeptics.
    The installer is for the 98% not the 2%. You are in the 2%.

    Joshua D. Drake
    -jwb


    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

    http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Jeffrey W. Baker at Jan 31, 2006 at 5:00 am

    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:53 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    Oracle's graphical installer is a material impediment to Oracle
    adoption. The installer only works on systems where particular versions
    of Java and Motif libraries are available. On 64-bit Opteron systems it
    only works with the peculiar 32-bit thunking tree favored by Red Hat and
    hardly anybody else.

    If I could install Oracle on Debian/AMD64 with a shell script, I'd drop
    Postgresql in a heartbeat.

    Obviously anybody is welcome and able to just write whatever software
    they feel is needed, but go ahead and count me among the skeptics.
    The installer is for the 98% not the 2%. You are in the 2%.
    Right, and it would make FAR more sense if Oracle just shipped the whole
    thing, operating system and the works, on a single installer image.

    So why don't you just do that with Postgres? You could call it
    "Bootable PostgreSQL". It would be a big hit. When a new version comes
    out, you can just mail out a new DVD.

    That would be a lot better than pretending to know how to fit in, best
    practices and the works, with all the various Unix systems out there.

    -jwb
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 31, 2006 at 5:12 am
    Jeff,
    So why don't you just do that with Postgres? You could call it
    "Bootable PostgreSQL". It would be a big hit. When a new version comes
    out, you can just mail out a new DVD.
    Actually, we have these. We give them out at conferences.

    --Josh
  • Jim C. Nasby at Jan 31, 2006 at 6:58 pm

    On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:53:54PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    If I could install Oracle on Debian/AMD64 with a shell script, I'd drop
    Postgresql in a heartbeat.

    Obviously anybody is welcome and able to just write whatever software
    they feel is needed, but go ahead and count me among the skeptics.
    The installer is for the 98% not the 2%. You are in the 2%.
    I've yet to find *anyone* who likes the Oracle installer. It's
    absolutely the last thing I would use as a point of reference.

    Come to think of it, the DB2 installer was a pile of crap as well...

    My concern with this installer is that people are going to show up in
    -general or on IRC in droves with dependancy related problems with the
    installer. IMO it would be *much* better if we instead focused on
    something that made it easy to install stuff out of contrib and/or
    pgFoundry (and prefferably could be used without a GUI).

    But, OSS works by people scratching itches, so if there's folks who want
    to scratch this itch...
    --
    Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
    Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
    vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 9:16 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 20:41 -0800, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote:

    How will you do an orderly upgrade from one revision to the next,
    including all the dependencies?
    We are still in planning phase, any ideas of how to do that is welcome.
    How will you distribute security updates?
    We are still in planning phase, any ideas of how to do that is welcome.
    I predict this form of installation will cause a great many support
    headaches as users report problems which are caused by oddball
    compilers, strange CFLAGS, unreleased or strangely patched versions of
    shared libraries and headers, and so forth.
    I can't see a problem in here. We already have platform test results in
    pgbuildfarm and we have the knowledbase about the configure options,
    flags etc. in that platforms.
    Obviously anybody is welcome and able to just write whatever software
    they feel is needed, but go ahead and count me among the skeptics.
    The world is not turning around us, and please don't be skeptic on a
    piece of software that you won't use but some people will.

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Tino Wildenhain at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:49 am
    Joshua D. Drake schrieb:
    ...
    As more and more people come on board people are going to want to
    download a .exe (a metaphor),
    double click and have it open an installer, they will then want to click
    next, next, continue, finish.

    You don't get that with apt-get install.
    Well you can use a frontend and search and click as well. I see no
    problem - and it really works, as opposed to:
    There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on Linux,
    because most people installing
    the software:

    A. Don't know how to use it
    B. Probably don't know how to use Linux
    C. Don't want to.
    Hehehe. Did you actually use this installer? I did! And lets tell you,
    you dont come by w/o any linux/unix knowledge.

    Regards
    Tino
  • J. Andrew Rogers at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:55 am

    On Jan 30, 2006, at 7:52 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
    There is a reason that even Oracle has a graphical installer on
    Linux, because most people installing
    the software:

    A. Don't know how to use it
    B. Probably don't know how to use Linux
    C. Don't want to.

    Except that the Oracle "graphical installer" usually requires a non-
    trivial amount of command line kung-fu that alone is more complex
    than the entirety of the command line installation of PostgreSQL.
    Oracle installation is an unpleasant and painful process even under
    the best of circumstances, and I've never had one that required less
    effort than Postgres for a vanilla install. And I always install
    postgres from source. If "./configure; make; make install" scares
    away people, sorting out the dependency hell getting the Oracle
    installer to even run on nominally supported platforms will
    definitely scare them away.

    A graphical installer for Unix is fine, but please, do not make it
    anything like Oracle's graphical installer. Oracle's graphical
    install process gives command line installs a good name for ease of use.


    J. Andrew Rogers
  • Bricklen Anderson at Jan 31, 2006 at 3:10 pm
    J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
    <snip>
    A graphical installer for Unix is fine, but please, do not make it
    anything like Oracle's graphical installer. Oracle's graphical install
    process gives command line installs a good name for ease of use.


    J. Andrew Rogers
    I heartily second that!
  • Devrim GÃNDÃZ at Jan 31, 2006 at 9:16 am
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 19:35 -0800, Christopher Browne wrote:
    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    You'd better define the purpose pretty clearly, as I don't see any
    purpose that's of value, yet.
    I agree with Joshua's points here. Think of people who do not want an
    installation via command line.

    Regards,
    --
    The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
    PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
    Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
    Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
  • Chris Browne at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 19:35 -0800, Christopher Browne wrote:
    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please
    drop me an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use
    Python, so you need to be a Python guy to join the project. We
    are in planning phase, if you join us earlier, we will be able to
    share more ideas.
    You'd better define the purpose pretty clearly, as I don't see any
    purpose that's of value, yet.
    I agree with Joshua's points here. Think of people who do not want
    an installation via command line.
    When virtually every flavour of Unix has its own package manager, I
    have difficulty distinguishing this from the "badness" of how Oracle's
    installer handles things.

    The people I imagine would be of interest as plausible new users are
    the ones that don't want to be troubled with configuring pretty well
    anything at all, command line or no.

    The sort of thing that would get PostgreSQL much more widely deployed
    would be (for instance) for applications like GnuCash or components of
    GNOME/KDE to adopt it as their storage mechanism. Their developers
    are not particularly interested in doing a lot of DBA work, e.g. -
    setting up users, pg_hba.conf, and such. (The need for this is one of
    the reasons the GnuCash people have been biasing towards SQLite...)

    It's worth noting that GNOME/KDE projects have NOT attempted to build
    their own GUI installers except in the forms of very platform-specific
    things. In that regard, they let each platform have its own set of
    "idioms."
    --
    let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
    http://cbbrowne.com/info/slony.html
    CBS News report on Fort Worth tornado damage:
    "Eight major downtown buildings were severely damaged and 1,000 homes
    were damaged, with 95 uninhabitable. Gov. George W. Bush declared
    Tarrant County a disaster area. Federal Emergency Management Agency
    workers are expected to arrive sometime next week after required
    paperwork is completed."
  • Richard Huxton at Jan 31, 2006 at 2:47 pm

    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
    Hi,
    On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 19:35 -0800, Christopher Browne wrote:
    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    You'd better define the purpose pretty clearly, as I don't see any
    purpose that's of value, yet.
    I agree with Joshua's points here. Think of people who do not want an
    installation via command line.
    Surely the only people installing from the command-line are those that
    want to. There's synaptic or yum or whatever to let you search for
    "postgresql" and handle all your dependencies for you.

    I mean *I* compile from source when I'm testing betas or want to
    backport and there's no package but I can't imagine most Ubuntu users
    bother.

    Now something to let you install extra modules, tune your
    postgresql.conf and pg_hba.conf - that's useful. If it can explain as it
    goes along, all the better (like "bastille linux"?)

    --
    Richard Huxton
    Archonet Ltd
  • Tony Caduto at Jan 31, 2006 at 4:48 am
    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    Have you looked at AutoPackage?

    http://autopackage.org

    screen shots.

    http://autopackage.org/gallery.html

    Has a GUI wizard if X windows is available and a command line wizard if
    no X is available.


    Using autopackage is similar to using MSI,Wise,Inno etc on Windows.

    Later,

    --
    Tony Caduto
    AM Software Design
    Home of PG Lightning Admin for Postgresql
    http://www.amsoftwaredesign.com
  • Steve Atkins at Jan 31, 2006 at 6:28 am

    On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Tony Caduto wrote:

    Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

    Have you looked at AutoPackage?

    http://autopackage.org

    screen shots.

    http://autopackage.org/gallery.html

    Has a GUI wizard if X windows is available and a command line
    wizard if no X is available.


    Using autopackage is similar to using MSI,Wise,Inno etc on Windows.
    If that's the one that uses aptools it looks _excellent_. Until you try
    and use it. It looked as though it would solve many of my packaging
    problems, not least deploying on older platforms than the build box,
    but simply didn't work on anything more complex than toy code.

    I suspect that if you were just using it as a general installer, rather
    than any of the portability magic, it might be worth a look.

    Cheers,
    Steve
  • Tino Wildenhain at Jan 31, 2006 at 7:34 am

    Devrim GUNDUZ schrieb:
    Hi,

    As you know, many databases that run on Linux / Unix systems have a GUI
    installer which make installation easier and more attractive for some
    people.
    If you think of the *racle-GUI-Installer, most people find it very
    s*cking ;)
    Our Windows Installer is very attractive, for example.

    Now, I and Burcu Guzel, who is a Senior Programmer, decided to launch a
    new project: pgnixinstaller :

    http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgnixinstaller/

    We are actively looking for developers for the project. Please drop me
    an e-mail if you want to join this project. We will use Python, so you
    need to be a Python guy to join the project. We are in planning phase,
    if you join us earlier, we will be able to share more ideas.
    Might be fun of course. But on unix you usually have some kind
    of package system anyway - how is the installer supposed to
    play nicely with them?

    Regards
    Tino

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase