Dave Page wrote:
Exactly - which is why I was objecting to recommending a distribution
of PostgreSQL that came in a packaging system that we were told
changed /usr/local to be world writeable to avoid the use/annoyance of
the standard security measures on the platform.
We... that's not exac
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> then, we're talking about making parts of the filesystem
>> world-writeable so it doesn't even matter if the user is running as an
>> admin for a trojan or some other nasty to attack the syste
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> then, we're talking about making parts of the filesystem
> world-writeable so it doesn't even matter if the user is running as an
> admin for a trojan or some other nasty to attack the system.
The argument is that a trojan or other nasty doesn't
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>
> --Documentation
>
> Homebrew will have to become more complicated if it's going to try and
> wander down this path. With complexity and backward compatibility come
> increased needs for documentation.
One more to add:
--QA
When PostgreSQL u
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 4/3/12 5:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> If homebrew intentionally creates a hole like that, then for as long
>>> as I'm one of the PostgreSQL webmasters it will *never* be listed on
>>> our
On 4/3/12 5:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> If homebrew intentionally creates a hole like that, then for as long
>> as I'm one of the PostgreSQL webmasters it will *never* be listed on
>> our download pages.
I don't agree. Listed with a warning, sur
On 04/01/2012 04:19 PM, Jay Levitt wrote:
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS/PREREQUISITES
10. There is no homebrew support for multiple versions, and no current
plans to add it (though it's on the wishlist). This means homebrew is
only useful if "I want to install a PostgreSQL thingie" is the common
Mac use
Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
If homebrew intentionally creates a hole like that, then for as long
as I'm one of the PostgreSQL webmasters it will *never* be listed on
our download pages.
I think that's a bit harsh. It's not as if the PostgreSQL package
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Christopher Browne wrote:
> It's pretty typical for MacOS applications to require "enter your
> password; I need to su to root to install this!" in plenty of places
> where the UI does not actually tell you what is being done as root.
> After enough iterations of "
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> If homebrew intentionally creates a hole like that, then for as long
>> as I'm one of the PostgreSQL webmasters it will *never* be listed on
>> our download pages.
>
> I think that's a bit har
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> If homebrew intentionally creates a hole like that, then for as long
> as I'm one of the PostgreSQL webmasters it will *never* be listed on
> our download pages.
I think that's a bit harsh. It's not as if the PostgreSQL package
creates the secur
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
> So this is pointless to the discussion now, but if you want to engage
> off-list, I'd frankly love to be reconvinced:
It may not be an unreasonable thing for an individual user to do to
their own machine. But it's not really Postgres's place to
David Johnston wrote:
> Just trying to bridge an apparent gap since the original e-mail seems to
> have come across as too adversarial that the underlying thoughts have
> been overlooked. Trying to contribute in my own way with my current
> resources.
Thanks, but it's my own fault for basing a h
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
>
> Sure, and if humans read docs, instead of just glancing at them, that'd be
> all you needed. In any case, I could counter myself that nobody reads the
> doc period, so it doesn't matter what version is listed; that's just the
> source of my own
Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
Just as an FYI, a large percentage of the PostgreSQL developers are
Mac users, including myself. They're also the company standard at
EnterpriseDB - so we're not entirely unfamiliar with software
development on them.
Good to k
On 04/02/2012 05:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of malware for Windows that
relied on the ability to write to "system" directories like this to do
their misdeeds. Anywhere they can write (or modify existing) software
that may get executed at boot time or by an
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
>
> At this point I agree with you, but I'm still going to go into detail,
> because I think there are two markets for Postgres, and the database
> community has been so focused around enterprise for so long that you're
> missing opportunities wit
On Apr 1, 2012, at 13:14, Jay Levitt wrote:
> The Mac installation docs currently recommend the EDB one-click installer as
> the first choice. While this does install pgadmin and some other refinements,
> it also is fairly confusing to troubleshoot:
>
The items are not numbered and it is impo
On Apr 1, 2012, at 21:50, Jay Levitt wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> While you might not like the EDB installer, at least those
>> folks are active in the lists and accountable for whatever problems
>> their code has. Who in heck is responsible for the "homebrew"
>> packaging, and do they answer que
Tom Lane wrote:
While you might not like the EDB installer, at least those
folks are active in the lists and accountable for whatever problems
their code has. Who in heck is responsible for the "homebrew"
packaging, and do they answer questions in the PG lists?
Just for general knowledge... Wh
Dave Page wrote:
> It seems to me that most of your arguments against the installers are
> based on incorrect understanding or information, and most of your
> arguments for Homebrew actually come across as arguments against!
You're right about the former - and as to the latter, they *were* argume
Hi
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Jay Levitt wrote:
> The Mac installation docs currently recommend the EDB one-click installer as
> the first choice. While this does install pgadmin and some other
> refinements, it also is fairly confusing to troubleshoot:
>
> - By default, it installs to /Libr
Jay Levitt writes:
> So with all respect and thanks to EDB for maintaining those installers, I'd
> like to propose that homebrew become the recommended install method on Mac,
> and I will update the Mac formula to overcome any current objections.
This proposal doesn't seem to me to have any cha
Jay Levitt wrote:
POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS/PREREQUISITES
10. There is no homebrew support for multiple versions, and no current plans
to add it (though it's on the wishlist). This means homebrew is only useful
if "I want to install a PostgreSQL thingie" is the common Mac use case. If
people often
24 matches
Mail list logo
