Обсуждение: Add AlmaLinux as Specifically Supported Distro

+Devrim

On 1/4/22 10:42 AM, Jonathan Wright wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My name is Jonathan Wright and I'm in the Infrastructure Team Lead for 
> AlmaLinux.  I/we use Postgres (naturally)

Glad to hear it!

>  and today I noticed that 
> AlmaLinux is missing as a specifically listed supported distro at 
> https://www.postgresql.org/download/ 
> <https://www.postgresql.org/download/> and 
> https://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/ 
> <https://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/>
> 
> I see that Rocky was added which is great, but I think it would also be 
> appropriate to add AlmaLinux.  Alma and Rocky are on about equal footing 
> in terms of adoption and both are major players in the RHEL rebuild 
> arena at the moment.  It would be beneficial for users of both Postgres 
> and Alma to have the support specifically listed.

I defer to Devrim on if the PostgreSQL YUM Repo supports AlmaLinux. I 
did see some random Internet instructions that shows how to install 
packages from the PostgreSQL YUM repo onto AlmaLinux systems.

For the OS distro, do you have a reference to which PostgreSQL packages 
are available natively in Alma? I wasn't able to find it in my five 
minutes of searching (though I did find the repo list)[1].

Thanks,

Jonathan

[1] https://wiki.almalinux.org/repos/AlmaLinux.html

Jonathan Wright <jonathan@almalinux.org> writes:
> My name is Jonathan Wright and I'm in the Infrastructure Team Lead for
> AlmaLinux.  I/we use Postgres (naturally) and today I noticed that
> AlmaLinux is missing as a specifically listed supported distro at
> https://www.postgresql.org/download/ and
> https://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/

> I see that Rocky was added which is great, but I think it would also be
> appropriate to add AlmaLinux.

Well, the reason Rocky is listed is that it *is* considered supported,
which is because somebody is running a buildfarm animal under that OS:

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_history.pl?nm=queensnake&br=HEAD

I don't see any animal running Alma, so claiming that it's supported
seems a bit premature.  If you'd like to run such an animal, see
directions here:

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/register-form.pl

It's not terribly resource-consuming, if you set it up to run once a
day per branch, which is plenty for a platform that ought-to-work.

(There's a separate question of whether Devrim's RPMs will work
out-of-the-box on Alma, or whether it'll need its own build.)

            regards, tom lane

Hi,

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 11:13 -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> I defer to Devrim on if the PostgreSQL YUM Repo supports AlmaLinux. I
> did see some random Internet instructions that shows how to install
> packages from the PostgreSQL YUM repo onto AlmaLinux systems.

I build packages on RHEL 8 and then test on Rocky 8, like I used to
test on CentOS 8 in the past. I know that many people want to see Alma
Linux as a supported distro, but at some point I had to make a decision
which clone should be the "main" supported one -- and that's Rocky
Linux.

(I'm not going to start a discussion about who are behind two distros,
as this won't be a technical one, and also not related to this list).

I'm quite sure that packages will work on Alma Linux, but no intention
to test the packages on yet-another-clone.

-HTH

Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

Hi,

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 10:38 -0600, Jonathan Wright wrote:
> I'm happy to set up a build node on Alma and add it to the build farm
> if that helps everyone feel better about listing Alma as well.

Thanks, but we don't use external instances to build the RPMs for
security reasons -- what Tom mentioned was something else.

Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

Hi,

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 11:01 -0600, Jonathan Wright wrote:
> Gotcha.  Anything I need to do for listing Alma then (realizing
> tests/builds won't happen on it directly)?  I send patches if needed.

As I explained before, unless community decides otherwise7, Rocky will
be listed there. I already buildpackages on 11 separate platforms (plus
Rocky for testing), and no intention to add another "clone".

Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

On 2022-01-05 04:41, Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 11:01 -0600, Jonathan Wright wrote:
>> Gotcha.  Anything I need to do for listing Alma then (realizing
>> tests/builds won't happen on it directly)?  I send patches if needed.
> 
> As I explained before, unless community decides otherwise7, Rocky will
> be listed there. I already buildpackages on 11 separate platforms (plus
> Rocky for testing), and no intention to add another "clone".

Are we able to indicate on the download page that our CentOS RPMs 
"should"
work on AlmaLinux, though we haven't tested it ourselves?

Seems a bit unfair to completely leave them off the list.

+ Justin

> On Jan 4, 2022, at 09:49, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> wrote:
> Are we able to indicate on the download page that our CentOS RPMs "should"
> work on AlmaLinux, though we haven't tested it ourselves?

I think there would be a concern that if a community package doesn't work on Alma, for whatever reason, we're implying
thatwe will provide support in some way.  If we qualify it too much, it becomes "Alma exists" rather than useful
informationfor the downloader. 

Hi,

On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 04:49 +1100, Justin Clift wrote:
> Are we able to indicate on the download page that our CentOS RPMs
> "should" work on AlmaLinux, though we haven't tested it ourselves?
>
> Seems a bit unfair to completely leave them off the list.

I'm not against it as long as "should" word is there.

Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

Jonathan Wright <jonathan@almalinux.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:53 AM Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> wrote:
>> I think there would be a concern that if a community package doesn't work
>> on Alma, for whatever reason, we're implying that we will provide support
>> in some way.  If we qualify it too much, it becomes "Alma exists" rather
>> than useful information for the downloader.

> Do you really want to exclude a large portion of the RHEL-clone userbase
> though?  Oracle Linux is listed yet Alma has a much larger user base so I
> don't really understand the argument here.

I don't know the relative sizes of the user bases, but I think it would
be fair to have the download page list only the distro(s) Devrim actually
tests on, and then say something like "The RHEL packages should work on
other binary-compatible RHEL clone distros, but we don't test that".

            regards, tom lane

> On Jan 4, 2022, at 10:16, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I think it would
> be fair to have the download page list only the distro(s) Devrim actually
> tests on, and then say something like "The RHEL packages should work on
> other binary-compatible RHEL clone distros, but we don't test that".

+1.

Hi,

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 13:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't know the relative sizes of the user bases, but I think it
> would be fair to have the download page list only the distro(s)
> Devrim actually tests on, and then say something like "The RHEL
> packages should work on other binary-compatible RHEL clone distros,
> but we don't test that".

+1 .

Regards,

--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

On 1/4/22 1:22 PM, Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 13:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't know the relative sizes of the user bases, but I think it
>> would be fair to have the download page list only the distro(s)
>> Devrim actually tests on, and then say something like "The RHEL
>> packages should work on other binary-compatible RHEL clone distros,
>> but we don't test that".
> 
> +1 .

So, I want to back this up a minute.

There are two places where the language is being discussed.

First, on "Downloads"[1], if you click "Linux", you'll see a few panes, 
including one that says "Red Hat / Rocky / CentOS". I believe those 3 
are amongst those that Devrim explicitly tests the packages against. If 
there are more, they are encompassed underneath.

At this point, I would be -1 changing anything on #1 unless it adds more 
clarity to how users download. I looked at the data YoY, and clicks to 
the RHEL download page are up ~100%, which seems to indicate to leave 
things as is for the moment.

Then, there is the RHEL page[2] itself. It's divided into two sections:

- PostgreSQL Yum Repository
- Included in Distribution

IMV, I think it's fair to include Alma Linux in the "included in 
distribution", though per Tom's point we may want to ensure we have at 
least one buildfarm animal hitting it. However, we should make it clear 
what distributions Devrim test against, and perhaps add that disclaimer 
to the bottom of that list.

Or, at the top of the page where we list out distributions, we can add 
that line below.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Jonathan


[1] https://www.postgresql.org/download/
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/

Hi,

On Tue, 2022-01-04 at 13:52 -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/download/
> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/redhat/

(Slightly offtopic, but... )FWIW I *just* committed a few changes to
both of these, and made clear that we don't support CentOS 8 anymore.

Regards,
--
Devrim Gündüz
Open Source Solution Architect, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Twitter: @DevrimGunduz , @DevrimGunduzTR

On 1/4/22 2:03 PM, Devrim Gündüz wrote:

> (Slightly offtopic, but... )FWIW I *just* committed a few changes to
> both of these, and made clear that we don't support CentOS 8 anymore.

(...and I just commented on that change ;) I think it needs to be 
reverted and we need to agree to how we want to present that point as well).

Jonathan

On 1/4/22 2:06 PM, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> On 1/4/22 2:03 PM, Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> 
>> (Slightly offtopic, but... )FWIW I *just* committed a few changes to
>> both of these, and made clear that we don't support CentOS 8 anymore.
> 
> (...and I just commented on that change ;) I think it needs to be 
> reverted and we need to agree to how we want to present that point as 
> well).

(Err, revert my comment to revert. I misread one line in the commit Sorry!)

Jonathan