New project launched : PostgreSQL GUI Installer for Linux/Unix systems

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/

Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com> 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

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/

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 GUNDUZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com> 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

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/

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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/

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/

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/

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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/

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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

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 <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com> 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
>

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)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

> 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

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.

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

>
>
>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

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
> 7615664
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

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

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

> 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/

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

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

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

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

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

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 ;)

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

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

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(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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.

am 31.01.2006, um 8:46:44 +0100 mailte Tino Wildenhain folgendes:
> 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 ;)

Yes! And so we are compatible with Oracle ;-)

Andreas
--
Andreas Kretschmer (Kontakt: siehe Header)
Heynitz: 035242/47215, D1: 0160/7141639
GnuPG-ID 0x3FFF606C http://wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
=== Schollglas Unternehmensgruppe ===

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

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

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/

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 08:34 +0100, Tino Wildenhain wrote:

> > 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?

Yes,

We will try to stick the file locations of those package managers. We
already have that KB.

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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

> 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."

> 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."

> 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.)

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

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!

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

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?

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(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> 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,

Thanks to Devrim for the RPM stuff.

On Windows, we expect the installer, no question about that.

On Linux, virtually everyone including many beginners become familiar
with their package management system, be it yum or apt etc. Many of the
readme's, how-to's etc tie into it. The package management tools are
packaged with every distro. There is no environment to setup. Whether
you are using a headless box or a gnome desktop, there is usually an
interface into them.

The beginner just tries yum install xxx. I think folks would be
surprised that for many folks this is basically IT for them in terms of
package installation. Compiling from source, while theoretically
sometimes as easy, doesn't happen nearly as often.

And if you work with a client, the packaging system is what they know as
well. Please, can't you set it up so everything comes from an RPM?

I'm one of those people now.

I used to compile everything from source, from apache, through php and
my database. Had custom build scripts, and the whole works. But I threw
it away and use RPM wherever I can.

When I see postgresql packaged as an RPM, I'm pretty sure the file paths
have been modified to work with my system (they are) and the startup and
shutdown scripts tie in nicely (they do). Especially when I just want to
play with something, I want the simplest approach possible. And the
approach the most folks are familiar with is their package management
system.

So, what's the point of this rambling? Props to Devrim (and others) for
hand-holding us beginners (or lazy ones) with his existing packaging
work. It is tremendously appreciated and lowers the barrier to entry
more then they release.

And I wonder if an effort to take advantage of these existing
infrastructures that everyone (including in my mind beginners) are
familiar with, might yield good results.

- For example, packaging the pgadmin adminpack as an rpm/deb and more of
the pgfoundry items would do this.

- Or a postgresql repository for apt/yum etc, making
upgrading/installing even easier?

If this new installer plays nice with existing packaging systems, and
has the rules in place to custom compile lots of options, it seems close
to providing something in this area already out of necessity.

Perhaps a win-win for both areas with a bit of extension (ie, the
installer is backed by a repo that other users can use with other tools?)

- August